Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The End of Reasonable Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From this 2005 interview:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate. “Corporate Tax Loophole” and “Legalized Tax Fraud” (see article here) are phrases used by liberals and socialists to make it seem like taking completely legal advantage of tax law is somehow immoral or unethical. Like anyone utilizing tax deductions or laws to pay as little tax as possible, corporations are demonized for doing the same, as if it is somehow their moral obligation not to find ways to pay as little tax as possible.  They are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization when they use a term to describe something that is not what that term means.

Take the term “hate”.  The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.  Using their domination of the major media and entertainment market, and employing rabid gangs of “Social Justice Warriors”, anyone that simply disagrees with them and states their disagreement publicly is attacked as a “hater” or a “bigot”.  If you call an illegal immigrant “illegal”, you’re a racist – it doesn’t even matter the race of the immigrants in question.  If you express concerns about public bathrooms becoming gender neutral, you can be fired, like Curt Schilling.  In this way, honest debate is avoided and supplanted by emotionally charged false terminology that frames the debate in an entirely dishonest way.

Such as “tax cuts” “budget cuts” [corrected thanks to hrun].  With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes the budget” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax budget increase”.  Thus the debate is lost before it begins; the debate is never about actually cutting taxes the budget, but only about reducing the amount of increase.  Your “rights” can mean anything a leftist/progressive thinks you should get for free from the government, or provide you with whatever protections they think one ought to have.  Requiring a photo ID to vote becomes “racism” and “disenfranchisement”.  Refusing to force the public to pay for women’s contraceptives and abortions becomes a hate-filled “war on women” or being “against women’s rights” (while the real war on women, being conducted by Islamists worldwide, goes on unnoticed by leftists).  Performers boycott North Carolina for it’s “anti-LGBT” bathroom law, while the same performers gleefully perform in Dubai where homosexuals are executed.  Those who simply doubt a particular view held by many scientists are framed as “anti-science”.  The term “skepticism” now only applies if one ridicules that which it is politically correct to ridicule and dismiss; if you are skeptical of the wrong things, you are no longer a skeptic, you are a “denier”.

We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

“In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell.

 

 

Comments
Zachriel: we value truth over falsity.
Phinehas: Why?
Z: Personal preference. Call it a peccadillo, if you like.
If it is merely one person's preference, maybe you shouldn't use the pronoun "we" to describe who values it? Just a suggestion. :) I wouldn't like to call it a peccadillo. I'd rather call it what I suspect it is: a decent person's innate ability to recognize something that has intrinsic value. Your insistence on denying this? Well, that I would call a peccadillo. :)
Z: What about you? We suspect you value truth over falsity.
You are right to suspect such, of me and of every other decent person you know. The vast majority of people have something we've labelled a "conscience" to help describe our innate ability to recognize both good and evil, not just in our own actions, but in the actions of others. This is an important distinction, because it helps highlight how much our views on morality are not merely personal preference. After all, though I may personally prefer pineapple sherbet ice cream, the idea that I would expect other free creatures to do the same on pain of sanction or merely deep disapproval is both foreign and even obnoxious to me.Phinehas
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
SB, some interesting facts and views on the homosexuality issue, here. Just the 1st ch is an eye opener. KFkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Z, we cannot survive on zero truth, or even an envt which is so deceptive it would rapidly exhaust us. KFkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
kairosfocus —
“PS: Your attempt to call me a coward is illustrative.”
ziggy
No, just factual.
So, you are back to maligning someone's character again. And for what, stating facts? Why don't you be specific and tell me exactly which words kairosfocus used that would qualify as an act of cowardice.
His pathological inability to interact civilly with those he disagrees with is there for all to see.
I have already explained to you that hating bad ideas is not uncivil. It is the act of hating people that is uncivil. Tell me exactly and in what words kairosfocus mistreated you.
If you need any more evidence of this, just look to his post above where he links to a new article in which he criticizes me and others who disagree with him of scorched earth tactics, and sets the comments to “off” so that nobody can question him in it.
The scorched earth policy is the primary tactic that the gay lobby uses to intimidate its opponents. All these facts have been well-documented. Have you never heard of "jamming," which is one of the consistent and well-thought out means that gays use to silence opponents? This kind of behavior really is hateful. Yet you apparently condone it. Why? The object of jamming, by the way, is to shame gay opponents into silence by accusing them of bigotry and hate for merely disagreeing with them. If anyone says that gays are not born that way, or that they can change, they will be so labeled. Are you also going to call me a coward for pointing out these facts?
That, my friend, is the act of a coward.
So, in your judgment, anyone who states facts is a coward. Got it.StephenB
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: it is not just that we value true over false but we cannot survive without it Of course you can. Humans are very adaptable. Perhaps you mean modern civilization. Lies and truth seem to both coexist in modern society.Zachriel
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
ZL, a simple suggestion; do not write a comment online that you would not be willing to say to me in my living room in the presence of my family. That would remove a lot of the problem caused by a thread that began with accusations of bigotry, hate and hate speech and has continued with a pattern of attack comments and personalities that show the relevance of the concerns and analysis I and others have put on the table. The onward tone here also underscores the reason why I felt it wise not to open up a further thread likely to fall into the same spiral of distract distort denigrate and turnabout that has marred this one. KF PS: The headlined post, with embedded vids, link to a 43 pp paper and several illustrations also shows limits of comments and underscores that a supplementary full post can be helpful. For just one illustration, I am fairly sure that it is an eye opener to see the point made by Ms Gessen, and listen to it in context (including her summary of her family life, which can be compared to the testimony of victims above), noting the applause.kairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
KF -- "PS: Your attempt to call me a coward is illustrative." No, just factual.ziggy lorenc
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Z, it is not just that we value true over false but we cannot survive without it, which then points to the issue of root of value and norms and moral government. The only level where that can be found is in a world root being that is necessary [frameworking for a world to exist] and inherently good. KFkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Z, there is now another thread for that, but I suggest that without that we cannot analyse or communicate. Logic systems that set up a sandbox in which to some limited extent we have fuzzy set memberships etc, are just that, sandboxes in a wider world in which to get to the sandbox we have to rely on the premise of distinct identity. KFkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
StephenB: Essentially, you are saying, I value truth because I value it. That's essentially correct. We prefer truth. You may consider it a peccadillo, but there it is. StephenB: I value truth because it helps me to make wise decisions. That just turns it into a question as to the value of wisdom. Sure, we value truth because it helps lead to wisdom. We value wisdom because, well, consider it a peccadillo, if you like. Or, ah, wisdom leads to better results on average. What do we mean by better? We mean greater happiness and contentment for people. So why do we prefer happiness and contentment for people? We're rather fond of Homo poetica. Call it a foible, if you like. As Eugen says, "Zachriel is practicing peccadillo wisdom". What about you? You didn't answer. Do you value truth over falsity? kairosfocus: Take some distinct A in the world (I usually use a red ball on a table) imposing a partition: W = {A|~A} That assumes that such dichotomies can be made. That is an assumption that may or may not apply in a given logical system — or reality.Zachriel
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
OKkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
KF, Thanks, replying in the other thread.daveS
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
DS, to get to fuzzy logic, you have to use things that have distinct identity starting with alphanumeric characters. The same obtains for quantum theory. Refining a partial set member concept requires thought using distinct identity and its immediately present co-laws. Try to conceptualise and communicate or reason without marking distinctions -- impossible. So, the way we think about fuzzy logic has to reckon with that or fall into incoherence. KF PS: It may be best to continue this in that thread that I have long intended to get back to. We are both guests here. But this point does model how a reasoned discussion with disagreement can be entertained by way of contrast with the problem the OP headlines.kairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, there is no need for a specific source. Take some distinct A in the world (I usually use a red ball on a table) imposing a partition: W = {A|~A} LOI is there, A is A as it holds a distinct identity. LNC and LEM follow as any x in W will be A or not A but not both or neither.
I would prefer to see a source, because I believe your above argument does not hold in fuzzy logic, which is the context in which your original statement was made. Let's say the ball on the table is 0.5 red and 0.5 not red. Then it is not true that the ball is either red or not red, but not both or neither. Mathworld states that LEM does not hold in fuzzy logic:
A law in (2-valued) logic which states there is no third alternative to truth or falsehood. In other words, for any statement A, either A or not-A must be true and the other must be false. This law no longer holds in three-valued logic or fuzzy logic.
daveS
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
ZL, the rhetorical game on your part continues. Sad, but the problem is plain. KF PS: Your attempt to call me a coward is illustrative. I explicitly pointed out that I headlined a comment here and that onward discussion would continue here. The link back was provided and I linked the headlined comment from here. Anyone interested in the onward exchange would know where to look. Imagine, if you had started the thread there with a comment in the tone and hostile accusatory substance you just used? Indeed that is effectively what you just did. In other words, you just proved the point of the headlined comment and showed why it was advisable to headline and refer back. PPS: You will also note that I have spoken to a trend and a problem and specifically refrained from targetting individuals by name or handle. I suggest the following point may be helpful:
Now, most of those caught up in such games do not know the underlying cultural agenda or geostrategic power games connected to it. If they did, they would take serious pause before becoming part of a front group or turning footsoldiers in someone’s astroturf game. Many caught up in such may even take umbrage at being identified as caught up in such an agenda. But they need to understand that taking part in attack comments here is indeed footsoldier activism. (Notice, still no distancing from the accusations of bigotry, hate etc? What message do you think you are sending?) Those who are serious, should instead take the approach of responsible dialogue at worldviews level, informed by relevant science and history etc.
PPPS: If you think I have failed or refused to answer to a very broad range of the relevant issues directly or through links and now illustrations and videos, that is a serious oversight.kairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
DS, there is no need for a specific source. Take some distinct A in the world (I usually use a red ball on a table) imposing a partition: W = {A|~A} LOI is there, A is A as it holds a distinct identity. LNC and LEM follow as any x in W will be A or not A but not both or neither. LEM is actually any x in W is in (A XOR ~A). LNC is in effect there is no y such that y is in A AND in ~A. Here is Ari's discussion in Metaphysics 1011b:
. . . if it is impossible at the same time to affirm and deny a thing truly, it is also impossible for contraries to apply to a thing at the same time; either both must apply in a modified sense, or one in a modified sense and the other absolutely. Nor indeed can there be any intermediate between contrary statements, but of one thing we must either assert or deny one thing, whatever it may be. This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.
KFkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
StephenB -- "To call someone irrational and full of hate is far more insulting than to identify a leftist is a leftist. To judge one’s character and intent is far more aggressive than to assess one’s mindset." You are correct. I stepped out of line making this statement about you and I sincerely apologize to you for it. However, I'm afraid that it still applies to KF. You have always been forthright and replied to my questions and comments in good faith. KF, on the other hand, has not. If I were the only one commenting on this, I would suspect my own appraisal of the situation. But I am not. His pathological inability to interact civilly with those he disagrees with is there for all to see. If you need any more evidence of this, just look to his post above where he links to a new article in which he criticizes me and others who disagree with him of scorched earth tactics, and sets the comments to "off" so that nobody can question him in it. That, my friend, is the act of a coward.ziggy lorenc
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
KF, I realize this is a bit of a tangent, but do you have anything to say about my post #732? I'm curious whether you found any sources supporting your position.daveS
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Added stuff on REAL slippery slopes vs the strawman version often dismissed as a fallacy.kairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/fyi-ftr-addressing-ruthless-radicalism-tied-to-evolutionary-materialist-scientism-and-radical-secularism/kairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
F/N: it is quite clear that there is a scorched earth radical socio-cultural and policy agenda in our civilisation, rooted in progressivism and cultural marxism -- the radical, politically messianistic left in a nutshell. One of its core strategies is that ever increased dependence on Government intervention, control and subsidy advances its broad programme, and that ever rising government social welfare expenditures joined to regulations (especially in the name of environment concerns at local and global levels) drains a free enterprise system of its dynamism as a major alternative. It routinely resorts to media and education manipulation, is allied with evolutionary materialistic scientism, and has repeatedly used lawfare to hijack a chief means of justice to its agenda. At global level it is part of a red, double green alliance: the radical environmentalists (who often overlap) and the IslamISTS . . . agreeing in effect with the latter that the enemy of my enemy is my ally. Likewise, it targets the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation as the main worldview alternative. It is in this context that conjugal marriage and family systems have become a major target across decades, including the calculated undermining of traditional sexual morality. Those who want to get an idea of the end game here for marriage will find this tape of a talk by a Russian-Australian Lesbian activist, Masha Gessen, illuminating. Notice what the audience applauds. Yes, the utter destruction of marriage and family, thus of its stabilising influences. Across time, the mob of the ill-brought up angry and frustrated, confused young men will rise up, cannon fodder for the ruthless nihilistic strategic level Alcibiades of our time. Ponder the Sicilian expedition and its fate, and how Alcibiades operated. In that context, there are common tactics and underlying principles, some of which have been identified above . . . and which explain the theme in the OP, the end of reasonable discussion:
1: Rules for radicals, Alinsky style polarisation and attacks (which often exploit media penetration of progressivism], esp. no's 5 and 13:
5] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy [--> notice, the scorched earth mentality] into concessions [--> no reasonable agreement can be had with those determined to destroy you as their declared enemy, only deterrence and breaking their power to destroy]. 13] “Pick the target [--> notice again], freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
2: The triple-pronged Kirk-Madsen mainstreaming of a radical agenda (= Kupelian's marketing of evil) strategy:
-- desensitising (including "normalising" and "glamourising" or making the bizarre seem sympathetic or even a "right") -- jamming out sources of questioning or objection (often using Alinsky's tactics to induce a spiral of silencing or at least marginalisation, derogatory labelling, scapegoating and dismissal) -- conversion to accepting, enabling, or participation (exploiting cognitive dissonance and the way we respond to the perceived wave of the future, cf. the discussion by Schein)
3: As a major facet of this, the creation of a pattern: the caught up naive, enabling activists [and attack-commentry in or around a significant blog is such activism], front groups including pseudo grassroots activism, astroturfing. (A lot of politically connected trolling on the Internet is actually astroturfing.) 4: The distract, distort, denigrate idea/implementer hitman tactic (and women can be hitmen, too . . . ): distractive red herrings, led away to strawman caricatures of ideas soaked in attacks to the man and set alight rhetorically to distract, confuse, cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion. Part of jamming out. 5: The turnabout/ turnspeech "he hit (back) first" tactic. If a target for jamming out tries to defend himself, this will be used. After all if the attacker in reality can present himself as acting in self-defence that is a double advantage. (Notice, how the thread above began and how within the first ten comments the pattern of projecting hate and bigotry to those who would try to support things like conjugal marriage was set up. Notice, were I in the US or the like, such would be a basis for dis-employment.) 6: Spiral of escalation: core radicals of the nature we are discussing are essentially totalitarian and nihilistic. So, they have no limits other than what they sense they cannot get away with just now. (Hence the importance of a firm defense that blocks and deters attacks [even when the actual battle is at best a stalemate or even a fighting retreat -- a bloody nose is very instructive to a bully and when things escalate someone who stands with almost suicidal courage at a Thermopylae can set up a decisive victory at a Marathon by example and by buying crucial time], and then going over to the initiative to break the power of the radicals and fellow travellers.) 7: Fanatical, even irrational, locked in enmity -- often based on the disaffected native or immigrant minority or the urban poor (in Maoist style variants, the rural poor). One of the key steps is the creation of exhausting long haul conflict . . . often by guerilla/terrorist fish swimming among the sea of a mass of the disaffected . . . that will often wear down and trigger a home front defeat by demoralisation and retreat which seems to be or is presented as a moderate compromise solution. Sufficient retreats at strategic points can be fatal, such as is now playing out with Iran in the Middle East. (Those who imagine that an America under a Trump or a Clinton can turn to domestic matters will prove to be sadly mistaken. You are in World War IV, playing out as a slow burn global conflict.)
So, those who spent months trying to goad UD into entertaining a debate on homosexualisation of marriage need to understand that this is where it seemed necessary to take a stand. Take due note: when you -- come here under an umbrella of projecting accusations of bigotry and hate and hate speech, -- use selective hypersketicism in the face of serious discussion, -- try distract-distort-denigrate idea/implementer hitman games, -- use Alinsky style polarisation tactics, -- try turnabout accusations and play at he hit back first -- play at desensitise-jam out-convert mainstreaming of evil agendas and the like, . . . you will (for cause) be quite correctly read as being part of a known radical, destructive, nihilistic agenda at work in our civilisation. Now, most of those caught up in such games do not know the underlying cultural agenda or geostrategic power games connected to it. If they did, they would take serious pause before becoming part of a front group or turning footsoldiers in someone's astroturf game. Many caught up in such may even take umbrage at being identified as caught up in such an agenda. But they need to understand that taking part in attack comments here is indeed footsoldier activism. (Notice, still no distancing from the accusations of bigotry, hate etc? What message do you think you are sending?) Those who are serious, should instead take the approach of responsible dialogue at worldviews level, informed by relevant science and history etc. For instance, a pivotal issue above was, what is a right. Let's go back to 310, bearing in mind 248:
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.
Is there such a thing as morally governed human nature involving responsible, rational freedom? (If you are taking part in a discussion, that is implied. If you are playing manipulation tactics, it is still implied as you are exploiting our sense of duty to fairness etc. Of course, the import is, such is delusional and to be manipulated as with Plato's Cave of shadow shows . . . now improved through modern electronic media technologies. Such is cynical and nihilistic.) The premise of rational responsible discussion is that we are under moral government and there is thus an inherent worth in the human person that leads to governance based on principles such as those in the US DoI, 1776. And yes that raises serious worldviews questions. But we can here speak in terms of generally recognised sound principles, as Locke did when he cited Hooker in his 2nd treatise on civil govt:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
This already decisively undercuts the sort of scorched earth radicalism we have been seeing. In terms of the attack-point, marriage, it is clear that conjugal marriage is a time tested approach to building families based on our biology as male and female, the requisites of sound child nurture and moral governance. Homosexualism violates biology, brooks identity confusion, destabilises [imagine what happens as the agenda gets ever more deeply embedded in education] and is a patent perversion of sexuality that is prone to the spreading of disease through abuse of body parts not meant or well suited to such things. The demand of a right to such imposes a violation of principled conscience now backed up by lawfare. Don't even bother with the usual blame the victim games, the pattern is clear. Such can only be sustained through oppression and indoctrination that crushes the conscience. All of which points to the slippery slope headed over a cliff we are now on, and to the march of folly headed over that cliff. Bland denials and demands that we prove such to the satisfaction of those determined to advance that march are patently absurd. Enough has been long since shown for the prudent. It is time to wake up and turn back. Unless, it is already too late. KFkairosfocus
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Zachriel is practicing peccadillo wisdomEugen
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
ziggy to kairosfocus
You refer to people who disagree with you as “people of your ilk”, or “fellow travellers”, and worse.
I think you are overreacting here. That kind of phrasing is mildly impolite and mildly accusatory, but it doesn't rise to the level of raw incivility. In this exchange, at lest, no one called you a name, maligned your character, or judged your motives. Essentially, kairosfocus is saying that you fall into the category of leftists. That's not exactly scorching the earth. Here is a better example of incivility: ziggy
But the idea of the irrational hatred expressed by KairosFocus and StephenB towards homosexuals concerns me even more.
To call someone irrational and full of hate is far more insulting than to identify a leftist is a leftist. To judge one's character and intent is far more aggressive than to assess one's mindset.StephenB
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
Zachriel: "we value truth over falsity." Phinehas: "Why?" Zachriel: "Personal preference. Call it a peccadillo, if you like." Essentially, you are saying, I value truth because I value it. A rational answer would go something like this: I value truth because it helps me to make wise decisions.StephenB
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel: we value truth over falsity. Phinehas: Why? Personal preference. Call it a peccadillo, if you like. What about you? We suspect you value truth over falsity.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
KF -- "ZL, you need to realise..." Could you possibly be any more condescending? The only thing I need to realize, and I realized it a long time ago, is that you are completely incapable of interacting on a mature level with anyone who disagrees with your cherished views. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, by numerous people, yet you blame your inadequacies on me (and others). I have debated SB quite fruitfully, sometimes heatedly. Somewhere along the line I offended him and apologized for it. Because he did not deserve it. With respect to SB, he has responded to the request to provide evidence that SSM has been negative for society. I happen to disagree with him that his examples are the result of SSM or that they are an indication of anything systemic. You, on the other hand, have been asked to provide evidence that we are heading towards the cliff (repeatedly) and have done nothing but throw abuse at the people making the request. You refer to people who disagree with you as "people of your ilk", or "fellow travellers", and worse. SB and Mr. Murray and Aleta and Clavdivs and Phinehas and Origenes are able to disagree with each other and keep it civil. You, on the other hand, come across as a spoiled little brat who is not used to having anyone disagree with him. I have wasted far too much of my time trying to have some sort of meaningful communication with you. I should have heeded my earlier advice and ignored you. Much in the same way that I would avoid a piece of dog shit on the sidewalk.ziggy lorenc
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
ZL, you need to realise you have been championing a side that began with projections of hate speech and bigotry (...)
There you go again ... Let's say, arguendo, that I agree on a particular topic with Adolf Hitler. Just one topic. Now does that imply that I "champion" all Adolf's ideas? Obviously NOT I would say. It does NOT follow. So why do you keep insisting (and warning) that I (and anyone else who accepts SSM) side with Marxists, nihilists, evolutionists and so forth?
CLAVDIVS: If you continue with the “fellow traveller” rhetoric I will not refrain from reminding you that, by your logic *not mine*, someone who opposes gay marriage is a “fellow traveller” with the KKK.
What is unclear about this? Why is this not a wake up call?Origenes
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
ZL, you need to realise you have been championing a side that began with projections of hate speech and bigotry and which took the view that a significant paper that took a principled view on a major topic was to be dismissed as a tissue of bigotry and fallacies. In a context where hate speech laws point to where that goes. Discussions that examined substantial issues were swept away under accusations of hate and bigotry. I never saw where you distanced yourself from that pattern. In that context I simply point out that there has been on your side a consistent pattern of distract, distort, denigrate, multiplied by techniques very familiar from the track record of marxist agit prop agitators. Earlier today, I played the tape that showed what went on. SB has just had to make a very similar comment. As at now I can only conclude that your side has lost on substance but hopes to score a rhetorical win by projecting further accusations to those who are not going to take the time to see what has happened step by step. . In short the substantial discussion is effectively over. KFkairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Z:
No, we value truth over falsity.
Why?Phinehas
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Aleta:
Many children in single parent families have no active father, or one they see seldom. Hopefully they have other male role models, but that is the same for same-sex couples.
Would you not agree that single-parent families are not optimal and should be avoided in favor of two-parent families where possible?Phinehas
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 27

Leave a Reply