K.B. Napier is Incapable of Writing Persuasively

From my writing, one can easily determine my stance on certain political issues. It would seem that I focus mainly on the issue of gay marriage, giving the reader a jaded perspective of what I deem to be important. Marriage is a simple issue; I understand the arguments on all sides of the debate and can make an informed decision. Thus I write about it.

The issues that are important to me are more complex and I don't understand them well enough to write on them yet. I only speak about what I know and know that this is an intelligent policy. That being said, it pains me when people write opinionated articles on issues they don't understand. When they compensate by justifying every point by saying things like 'it's true, look it up' or 'I know this from experience', my pain increases tenfold.

Tonight, I stumbled upon the personification of my major pet peeves. Rather than waste my time refuting his numerous points in his numerous articles, I'm going to analyze a few key points and explain why they're unwise from an argumentative standpoint. This is not to reflect poorly on those who share the author's general views; rather it is meant to attack him personally and encourage him to try harder in the future.

The author is one K. B. Napier; his passion is the sanctity of marriage. He believes that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong. Napier is clean-cut, well educated and probably a decent guy. None of these qualities are in question.

There are, however, a few themes in his writing that he could do without. The most prominent would probably be the matter of vanity. I caught this quote in the first piece I read. "You know, like my friends on AC who try to minimise the effects of my writing by fiddling the star system!" The 'star system' is foolproof. People determine the rating of a piece of writing through consensus by voting individually on its merits. By fiddling with the star system, we don't intend to minimize the effects of his writing. We're simply informing him that he can't spell; that very sentence illustrates my point perfectly.

The next quote that follows this theme is: "And yes, it does appear that my IQ is far superior to that of my so-called 'critics'." It's important to only make statements that are ireffutably true. This one is not. For example, I'm a critic of his writing and my IQ is 180. I've been told this is a high number, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm smarter. Unless he throws his test scores out for the public to view, we'll only know that it's statistically more likely that he is less intelligent than this particular critic. Though amusing, it's a moot point; one doesn't need to be intelligent to speak with infallible logic.

Aside from being self-indulged, Napier has a tendency to write as an authority on a subject he doesn't fully understand. Christianity, aside from not being the authority on morality, doesn't actually support his claims. He embellishes the meaning of certain passages to strengthen his point.

Napier claims that homosexuality is an "abomination", according to the Bible. This is a reference to a falsely translated passage in Leviticus. In the original Hebrew text, the word used to describe homosexuality is 'toevah'. This means ritualistically impure. The sin of sodomy was equated with the sin of shaving or the sin of eating shellfish.

I suppose you could say it's an abomination, but you'd be wrong. I wouldn't take my word for it though. John Boswell, a professor of history at Yale once said, "The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters" It's clear that men far smarter than Napier or myself, authorities on the matter, understand that the Bible has another meaning in its original text. Napier should research the full meaning of the words he uses to emphasize his point.

Aside from acting as a pseudo-authority and misquoting ancient texts that he believes to be the supreme authority over my actions, he commonly prints libelous statements. "Gays are bullies without shame. They openly tell us the whole world will be homosexual in a decade! Did you know that?" Let's ponder this a moment, shall we? If they're openly making this claim, why do you assume we've never heard it? When someone makes a public statement, it would follow that the public would know about it. It would also follow that there would be a record of it.

Napier himself once wrote: "The trouble is, stupid people don't know they are stupid." I could go on about what I think is wrong with him as an intellectual, but I'd rather pose a little challenge. If what I've said has been untrue, inaccurate or offensive, Napier should prove that he is capable of making solid arguments by partaking in a public debate.

The prompt will be: The State should act to ensure that the rights of homosexual couples equal those of heterosexual couples.
I've worded it to be unbiased and transcend any one particular political situation. It's purely a philosophical debate and will be judged by the AC community. We will each publish a 400-450-word paper establishing our case on an agreed date. One week later, we will publish our rebuttals of the same length. The following week, a second response will be published and the week after, a closing argument of the same length. No new major points may be established after the second paper, and the rating of the final papers will determine the victor.

As the challenger, I will grant Napier the right to choose a side. I'd like to encourage him to step outside himself for this one and attempt to argue against his own preconceptions. It would be an enlightening experience for the both of us, I'm sure.