Rejecting the nonsense from 'check my ip' / part 2

Someone calling himself 'check my ip' typed lots of words and posted them in reply to this post. I summarized his disorganized ideas into 5 general themes, which I posted in those comments. The purpose of this entry is to respond to point #3. Perhaps I'll have 5 posts eventually, or maybe I'll get bored with this.

I asked him if it would be fair to say that one of his main points is "3.) There is a proper way to discuss such matters and treat other people, and adspar violates it."

His response was that this is "true."

The following quotes from his comments supported this idea. I don't believe any of these quotes are being taken out of context, but feel free to read the original and decide:

1. "This is not a way to have a fair and meaningful discussion."

2. "“Be aware, kind and respectful to others and you will receive such treatment in return."

3. It seems to me that all the quotes in part 1 are also intended to provide examples of the way I violate the proper ways of discussing things.
   

My immediate reaction to this idea of his is that the irony of him telling me how to have a fair and meaningful discussion is so ridiculous that it barely deserves acknowledgement. But since in this context he's 'check my ip' and not someone with a real name and a personal history with me, I'm going to have adspar respond and leave Adam Sparks out of it.

One idea he has that I agree with is "Be aware, kind and respectful to others and you will receive such treatment in return." And I agree with the implication that if one fails to be aware, kind, and respectful, one shouldn't expect to be treated well.

Let's talk about how 'check your ip' has decided to have a "fair and meaningful discussion". He writes:

Nobody wants to hear anyonein your position coming off as a victim of society's distrust. I wonder how that distrust has ever hurt you? I wonder what the heck that has to do with the conversation you want to have with your parents?

One of his main points was about "playing the victim card"and I'll hopefully address that in another post. But for now I'll simply note that of course nobody wants to hear that they've been unfairly victimizing someone else. Nobody likes to think of themselves as a bad guy and nobody likes it when their misdeeds are brought to their attention. But sometimes it needs to be said, and hopefully people who are basically good will be able to swallow their pride and accept constructive criticism. If not immediately, in the long run a good person will appreciate someone who is willing to tell them a hard truth (popularized by the hanging booger theory).

He goes on to obnoxiously wonder how I'm personally a victim, and what that has to do with my looming conversation with my parents. His questions seem to imply that he thinks I'm not a victim and that he thinks it doesn't have anything to do with my conversation with my parents. Well, I am and it does. I find his line of questions so offensive because it is immediately followed with:

I wonder why, if you are an athiest, you can't just let the Christians be. Nope, you have to set out to mock (yes, you do) and try and prove people wrong and defend yourself.

So he seems to be implying that my conversation with my parents is just some part of my greater plan to attack and mock and prove everyone wrong (although I'll allow that there is a possibility that his poor organization had him asking genuine questions and following them with this offensive bullshit, though it seems far more likely that the questions were not genuine and that they were part of this offensive bullshit).

As I clearly laid out in my last post, I only mock or attack people who deserved it based on their words or deeds. A privately held personal belief in a supernatural deity is a bit goofy, but I'm not going to attack someone just for that, although I might lightly mock them. As I said, I don't have to respect everyone's beliefs; respect for someone is a willingness to hear them out, not a guarantee of respect for what they say. What I will attack without apology are words or deeds that violate me or someone else.

Then he gets even more ridiculous and out of line:

DO you think people would really care if John Doe became an athiest? No, they wouldn't.

What a presumptuous asshole 'check your ip' is being here. People do care that I'm an atheist, and they treat me like shit because of it, just based on hearing about my atheism, before I've even said a word to them about it.

A fair and meaningful discussion is characterized by things like intellectual honesty, genuine attempt to understand the other's message, and avoiding words that are primarily intended to provoke or hurt someone. I emphatically reject his idea that I've violated any rules of fair and meaningful discussion, and I assert that 'check your ip' is the one who has violated those rules.

He rejects, out-of-hand, the idea that atheists could be victims. He rejects, before even considering it, that I could have been treated unfairly because of my atheism. He simply assumes that I'm attacking my own parents out of some ego-fueled quest to prove that I'm right and they're wrong.

What kind of person visits someone's personal blog and decides to write such offensive bullshit, and then on top of that has the gall to suggest that I'm the one who doesn't know how to have a fair and respectful conversation? I think it offers great insight into the mind of 'check your ip' that he makes baseless accusations about me in the same post as he demonstrates on of the very same characteristics he is allegging.

Is he so consumed with emotion and his own ego that he doesn't realize this is happening? Does he need to feel like the good guy and need to paint someone else as the bad guy so much that he can't see the obvious projection that is happening here? This is some ugly shit.