What I wrote previously is not sufficient. I owe John an apology. I rigorously hold others to standards, as a matter of standard procedure. These usually constitute what I consider "honest" dialog. I justify this by claiming to hold myself to an even more stringent policy, but I'm almost certainly clouded by ego in judging how strictly I police myself. Like a dieter justifying a pint of haagen-daz by pointing to the salad he had for lunch, I suspect I'm dishing out more than I'm taking.
I feel that I have an argument to make against John's views on the contraception battle, but I'm too tired to adequately make it. But I read his blog compulsively, and comment compulsively. I know what I want to say, but I don't have the energy to mobilize.
What I should have done is stated that fact openly. Instead, I acted immediately on impulse and baser emotions. Worse yet, I insinuated that I was sick of fighting an uphill battle and would quit a lost cause. That's dishonest. Also cheap. It's just a very base rhetorical ploy to inspire sympathy. I owe John better than that.
I apologize.
In the future, I'll try to remember that unless I'm prepared to see an argument through, while keeping within the limits of acceptable civil discourse, I should essentially keep my dumb mouth shut. I stooped too low. I will try my hardest not to do it again. If I do, I should be called out for it.
Accepted.
ReplyDeleteJohn has also brought the issues of smugness and general douchiness to my attention.
ReplyDeleteI will do my best to get that under control.
Also: meaness. This will be difficult because I'm sometimes frustrated with John's lack of memory, and the recycling of old talking points. That makes me want to be really honest about how angry that makes me. I will do my best to keep the honesty, but maintain some acceptable level of respect.
I may have to limit myself to saying something like "I really heartily disagree but I'm not prepared to elaborate at this time" until I can master that... skill. Anyway, mea culpa I guess.