tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2102448035078032340..comments2024-03-28T11:25:20.916-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Even treating some issues as debatable is considered offensive by someVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5790431732596105432016-04-20T00:28:07.106-07:002016-04-20T00:28:07.106-07:00April 17, 2016 10:31 AM
Blogger Victor Reppert s...<br />April 17, 2016 10:31 AM<br /> <br />Blogger Victor Reppert said...<br />I still think we have to err on the side of debatability. The idea that certain topics are so "incorrect" that they can't be discussed, or that we shouldn't give certain viewpoints respectability by debating them is too easy of a way for intellectual "establishment" positions to control discussion. <br /><br /><b>I agree about topics. some positions are not worth answering, I used to be super sensitive about defending my actions when I started atheist watch finally got to where I never answered personal attacks (except with insults). No point in it. my answrs were seen as admittions anyway because they didn't care about my motives</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17128331217392844642016-04-20T00:24:18.934-07:002016-04-20T00:24:18.934-07:00St. Augie said it all. City of God is not the city...St. Augie said it all. City of God is not the city of man, City of man is temporal power it will never be the city of God. wielding temporal power will always tak us through the sewer.<br /><br />You think the Dems suck? I remember LBJ. Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today. that was my nursery rhyme.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34880112394039699722016-04-19T14:16:24.623-07:002016-04-19T14:16:24.623-07:00In all fairness, I don't think anyone who acti...In all fairness, I don't think anyone who actively advocates for either party really has their hands clean if party advocacy is a moral action. Both parties suck. The only way I can vote is to hold my nose and vote for what I hope will be a net gain for my values in the public square, which his hardly a glowing endorsement. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16794746319345591112016-04-19T07:04:16.044-07:002016-04-19T07:04:16.044-07:00There is no such thing as a government which is mo...There is no such thing as a government which is morally neutral, for governments are made of men (for which, see above). So, either a government will seek to support real morality, or it will seek to impose a twisted, and ultimately un-liveable, pseudo-morailty upon the people it rules. Politics and morality are inseparable, for both deal with the same subject matter -- "How then shall we live?"<br /><br /><b>the party you support and see as Godly paid mercenaries to cut off little gril's heads in Latin American countries and you rationalize that by saying I'm a liar. is that what you mean by "moral?" Apparently even the moral living guys can't stick to their own morals.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63206093469079640782016-04-19T07:00:56.638-07:002016-04-19T07:00:56.638-07:00Again, the problem is that if shouting down distas...Again, the problem is that if shouting down distasteful ideas becomes the standard, rather than ignoring or defeating them, then inevitably ideas that are true, ideas that are essential and need to be known, will get shouted down by an ignorant population or authority. The virtue of the free exchange of ideas needs to be upheld, even if it means tolerating nonsense or vileness.<br /><br /><b>Right on!</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60324913319265158942016-04-19T06:58:29.639-07:002016-04-19T06:58:29.639-07:00They literally allowed the pro-abortion people to ...They literally allowed the pro-abortion people to spew their poisonous views in public and thereby conferred moral legitimacy to the pro-abortion party. <br />Same goes with legitimacy provided to Peter Singer, to pro-mercy killing party, to pro-same sex marriage.<br /><br />April 18, 2016 10:07 PM<br /> <br /><b>and next we need to makes trains run on time</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10591262030294104212016-04-19T04:31:53.994-07:002016-04-19T04:31:53.994-07:00That's OK, B.Con', you tell yourelf what y...That's OK, B.Con', you tell yourelf what you need to tell yourself. I know what "a pox on both their houses" <i>means</i>.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41923955144593026262016-04-18T22:07:09.956-07:002016-04-18T22:07:09.956-07:00John Moore is absolutely right that some debates c...John Moore is absolutely right that some debates can not be allowed for doing so provides a measure of legitimacy to the offending views.<br /><br />This has been the great mistake of American religious people--the belief in absolute freedom of people to speak in public forums. <br /><br />They literally allowed the pro-abortion people to spew their poisonous views in public and thereby conferred moral legitimacy to the pro-abortion party. <br />Same goes with legitimacy provided to Peter Singer, to pro-mercy killing party, to pro-same sex marriage.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63498714621569707852016-04-18T08:56:08.019-07:002016-04-18T08:56:08.019-07:00"B.Concervatin' is going to turn into a c..."<i>B.Concervatin' is going to turn into a conservative, yet.</i>"<br /><br />Not bloody likely, Ilion. The liberals have indisputably gone off the Deep End into insanity and a penchant for coercion, but the conservatives still hold on grimly to <b>Hell's Own Governing Constitution</b>.<br /><br />Not much of a choice between them. I'll stick to "middle of the road extremism".<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53945002935398816782016-04-18T08:01:33.289-07:002016-04-18T08:01:33.289-07:00They should have held that debate, if only to have...They should have held that debate, if only to have the "pro-terrorism" arguments annihilated in in a free exchange of ideas. (Pity the poor souls assigned to argue that side, however. I realize that on debate teams, you don't get to choose which position you must defend.)planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90061402982080484322016-04-18T07:46:33.070-07:002016-04-18T07:46:33.070-07:00Again, the problem is that if shouting down distas...Again, the problem is that if shouting down distasteful ideas becomes the standard, rather than ignoring or defeating them, then inevitably ideas that are true, ideas that are essential and need to be known, will get shouted down by an ignorant population or authority. The virtue of the free exchange of ideas needs to be upheld, even if it means tolerating nonsense or vileness.<br /><br />Of course, I suppose what I just said is debatable, isn't it?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86297890790399925062016-04-17T23:07:29.572-07:002016-04-17T23:07:29.572-07:00Wow, this item just now popped up on Religious New...Wow, <a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/04/15/185018/" rel="nofollow">this item</a> just now popped up on Religious News Service: "Debate teams must not be allowed to justify terrorism" by Jeffrey Salkin.<br /><br />John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19302007265700150832016-04-17T22:15:08.724-07:002016-04-17T22:15:08.724-07:00"Biggest problem is that the government decid..."<i>Biggest problem is that the government decided to hop in and just declare, as settled fact backed by legal punitive authority ...</i>"<br /><br />There is no such thing as moral neutrality, because it is impossible for any man to be neutral with respect to morailty -- either a man will try to understand and live by real morality, or he will try to live by a twisted, and ultimately un-liveable, pseudo-morailty.<br /><br />There is no such thing as a government which is morally neutral, for governments are made of men (for which, see above). So, either a government will seek to support real morality, or it will seek to impose a twisted, and ultimately un-liveable, pseudo-morailty upon the people it rules. Politics and morality are inseparable, for both deal with the same subject matter -- "<i>How then shall we live?</i>"<br /><br />There is no such thing as a government which is religiously neutral, for there is *always* a "god of the system"; and that god will be either the real God or some idol set up by men. And, if an idol, there is likely a demon behind it.<br /><br />=======<br />When the leftists/Progressive conned the American people into accepting the (false) premise that the US Constitution established a secular state (*), that was only the first step in the dance. Their goal was-and-is to replace Christianity with atheism and statism as the cultural basis of the nation -- to set up The State as "god" -- and then to suppress Christianity.<br /><br />There is *always* a "god of the system".<br /><br />(*) As I've said before, it does nothing of the sort; it establishes an implicitly Christian non-sectarian state. America itself, and our Constitution, is a <i>truce</i> between the different sects of Christianity.<br /><br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90346086903461086692016-04-17T21:54:32.870-07:002016-04-17T21:54:32.870-07:00B.Concervatin' is going to turn into a conserv...B.Concervatin' is going to turn into a conservative, yet.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18354281363712715792016-04-17T21:17:47.158-07:002016-04-17T21:17:47.158-07:00Go ahead and call me paranoid if that's what m...Go ahead and call me paranoid if that's what makes you feel good, but I truly fear the eclipse of Free Speech in this country. When people are all too quickly labeled "bigots" and "haters" for beliefs that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for millennia, then something is definitely out of kilter. For university students to <i>demand</i> "safe zones" where they won't encounter differing opinions, then the very purpose of higher education is lost. When controversial speakers are disinvited because of campus protests, it's time for parents to cut off the tuition support. When speech is <i><b>compelled</b></i> (as in forcing bakers to write things on their artwork that they consider objectively evil), then it is only a short step to thought control.<br /><br />And yes, slippery slopes do exist. Laughing at them does not make them go away.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33507776444101258892016-04-17T19:54:12.922-07:002016-04-17T19:54:12.922-07:00I believe you missed the point entirely about the ...I believe you missed the point entirely about the government. It's not that "one leads to the other", it's that there is more harm possible in the "do not debate certain subjects" mentality than there is in the alternative. No stifling of ideas, no risk of legal penalties (imprisonment doesn't happen in the US, yet). <br /><br />Now obviously, if Ken Ham wanted to hold a debate on campus about evolution, no one is obligated to give him that debate. And that's fine. The problem is when people are so opposed to criticism of an idea that they will move to make sure that criticism can't be heard, as has happened lately with protesters trying to stop certain conservatives from speaking on their campuses. It doesn't have to only be debate formats that get shut down, these people refuse to even let the opposition speak. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82341329345982277352016-04-17T17:04:33.360-07:002016-04-17T17:04:33.360-07:00It's like different leagues in sports. You wou...It's like different leagues in sports. You wouldn't let third graders play in the NBA, right? And that's not to imply that third graders shouldn't play basketball at all, but it's just a question of where and with whom the third graders should play. In any case, you certainly wouldn't want to punish third graders for playing basketball. That's absurd.<br /><br />Ken Ham lecturing at Harvard would be like a third grader playing in the NBA.<br /><br />Both sports and science have clear systems of scoring, clear winners and losers. I don't know about theology, but when it comes to scientific questions, Ken Ham lost the game. It's not a matter of opinion - it's an objective fact.John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31563337062502876992016-04-17T16:54:08.329-07:002016-04-17T16:54:08.329-07:00It's not that certain topics can't be disc...It's not that certain topics can't be discussed at all, but my point was about how and where topics are discussed. The venue and the trappings.<br /><br />Some people jumped to the conclusion that refusal to debate in public leads to imprisoning people for holding certain beliefs. There's no logical connection here. Just because I don't invite Ken Ham to lecture at Harvard, that doesn't even suggest I want Ken Ham imprisoned.<br /><br />Some people jumped to the conclusion that the state must be the one to declare certain debates are over, but where did you get that idea? I think only individual people can decide which topics are settled, and only insofar as they decide not to talk about such things themselves in public.<br /><br />It's true that science is a community effort, and certain community standards can be oppressive sometimes. On the other hand, anybody who brings up new ideas that haven't been debunked before is welcomed to the discussion. The people who get ignored and have their proposals turned down are mostly those who keep bringing up <i>old</i> ideas. Science makes progress only insofar as it leaves debunked ideas behind and focuses on new ideas.John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51081501247795816482016-04-17T14:37:00.183-07:002016-04-17T14:37:00.183-07:00In the case of gender dysphoria, I think most peop...In the case of gender dysphoria, I think most people can ignore the screaming left and their cries of bigotry. If someone says that Caitlyn Jenner is in fact a man who physically altered himself to resemble a woman because he is suffering from gender dysphoria, and not a woman like my mother is, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would be sympathetic to the first view.<br /><br />Biggest problem is that the government decided to hop in and just declare, as settled fact backed by legal punitive authority, that Jenner is a woman like my mother, and not a man who physically altered himself to resemble a woman because he is suffering from gender dysphoria. The left in this case is acting like gender dysphoria is a settled subject and that to require one with male plumbing to use a male restroom is somehow the most heinous of beliefs. It's one thing to ignore a viewpoint, as I would on those who say there's no difference between Jenner and my mother. It's another problem entirely when the government declares for one side and then enforces it.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65629693918482024682016-04-17T13:50:47.237-07:002016-04-17T13:50:47.237-07:00Yes, there is a vast difference between ignoring v...Yes, there is a vast difference between ignoring viewpoints and suppressing them.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3255111320620360362016-04-17T13:49:17.254-07:002016-04-17T13:49:17.254-07:00"Thanks to the bullying tactics of the ABCDEF..."<i>Thanks to the bullying tactics of the ABCDEFG (or whatever letters are "in" nowadays) activists ...</i>"<br /><br />Call 'em "QWERTY"<br /><br />Someone who is an "activist" is generally a leftist, and almost always a troublemaker.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44394733121154908992016-04-17T13:26:27.348-07:002016-04-17T13:26:27.348-07:00I still think we have to err on the side of debata...I still think we have to err on the side of debatability. The idea that certain topics are so "incorrect" that they can't be discussed, or that we shouldn't give certain viewpoints respectability by debating them is too easy of a way for intellectual "establishment" positions to control discussion. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1299670185501267332016-04-17T10:31:30.597-07:002016-04-17T10:31:30.597-07:00I think Hilary Putnam (RIP) wrote somewhere: It...I think Hilary Putnam (RIP) wrote somewhere: It's not obvious what's obvious.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59909406627959070802016-04-17T09:41:35.347-07:002016-04-17T09:41:35.347-07:00Thanks to the bullying tactics of the ABCDEFG (or ...Thanks to the bullying tactics of the ABCDEFG (or whatever letters are "in" nowadays) activists, a woman who is uncomfortable because a male is using her restroom is labeled a bigot, whilst a male who is told he must use the men's room says his rights are being violated and his feelings are being hurt!<br /><br />So whose ideas are "crazy" now?planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10598898862268718162016-04-17T09:27:14.212-07:002016-04-17T09:27:14.212-07:00"clearly incorrect topics"
Who decides ..."<i>clearly incorrect topics</i>"<br /><br />Who decides what goes in this category?<br /><br />I actually agree with you about <i>ignoring</i> specific people (and ideas). I do that myself on this website. There are some contributors here to whom I simply don't respond. But <i>suppression</i>? Never.<br /><br />(That said, Victor "owns" this forum, and if he ever decides to ban somebody or to delete a specific comment, he is totally within his rights - just as a newspaper is not obligated to print every letter it gets. We all have the ability to open up our own online forum if we wish, so no one is being censored.)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com