You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
Try high quality listening (link to paper).

100% foolproof plan? No, but we want people to be able to consider their own positions on issues. The more defensive someone is, the less likely they are to be open to any discussion/discernment of what they are arguing. 
Did you want to hear this not being put into action listen to this “debate” and see how raising the stakes and grilling your opponent does for the search for truth.

Seems like Allah is having a bit of a crisis of confidence and over compensating because the magic religious ooga-booga isn’t strong enough with him. 
Bullshit baffles brains.

Working on this piece. The range is huge. SO much to do.
It is quite astounding that many people who claim to be “Queer” actually have no idea what the term actually means, or when asked, be able to define it for themselves.
Definitional clarity is important, it allows for honest conversation and the exchange of ideas.
Here is what “Queer” is defined as:

The above, is quoted from David Halperin, one of the founders of Queer Theory. This isn’t an uncharitable “conservative” definition, but rather straight from the one of the preeminent queer theorist’s mouth.
So, what I suspect is that many people just are part of the “fringe” of the queer cult, and want to identify with the trapping of “queerness” but don’t actually have a clue as to what actually being “queer” means.
Observe one of the thought termination cliches of many progressives. They argue for ‘inclusivity’ but when faced with disagreement, the meaning of the term shifts to mean ‘inclusive of thoughts that only match my own”.
As often the case, the progressive individuals assumes that they have to moral high ground and can pejoratively label the person disagreeing with them – thus relieving them of the duty to charitably assess the argument put forth.
You don’t have to argue against bigots and ‘phobes’ of any stripe. Thus, no thought is required, only a false sense of moral superiority.



Your opinions…