[Vision2020] Proof Positive the ID GOP Doesn't Care About ChildrenOnce They're Out of The Womb

[Paul Rumelhart]

If someone wanted to start a thread about either slavery or the morality 
of feeding Christians to the lions, I would not object.

Would you?

Paul

On 04/03/2011 07:06 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> Bad example. Obviously this example is something that does not make 
> you want to punch someone in the face.
>
> And you're missing the point. I like you so I don't want to embarrass 
> you and I tried to answer your question. But I don't want to have a 
> rational discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to talk 
> about slavery. It is offensive. That you can't see that is surprising 
> to me but in the end it is your problem and not mine. Find someone 
> else to entertain this nonsense.
>
> Or find another topic to get the point. Why not argue whether it is 
> moral to feed Christians to the lions. Maybe we should bring that back 
> for sport. See how far you get with that conversation, Mr. Free Speech!
>
> On Apr 2, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 04/02/2011 12:51 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> Short answer: Ask a black person this question. See what he says. 
>>> Then tell him why you think he has a fear of ideas. See how far that 
>>> dialogue progresses.
>>>
>>> Before I answer this question seriously, I'd prefer if you would 
>>> tell me the most painful part of your family history. Suppose for 
>>> instance that numerous folks in your family died of breast cancer. 
>>> Try wrapping your head around me saying "Why can't we even _talk_ 
>>> about whether or not breast cancer is a good thing? After all 
>>> freedom of expression is a good thing. What do you have a fear of 
>>> ideas?" Can you imagine how insensitive that would sound? If not, 
>>> then pick another example. Keep trying until you want to punch me in 
>>> the face for saying what I said. Then you'll get it.
>>
>> The two most painful periods in my life were undoubtedly when my 
>> mother died of diabetes and when my father died of leukemia, along 
>> with some painful times dealing with some aspects of my mom's 
>> condition as a family while growing up.  I consider myself lucky that 
>> those really were the worst experiences in my life.  I've had it easy 
>> in this life by many measures.  So let's say that someone came up 
>> with the idea that we should not try to cure people with cancer or 
>> life-long diseases like diabetes.  Their line of argument would 
>> probably include references to how we're thwarting evolution and that 
>> we are simply encouraging the destruction of our DNA as a species 
>> over time.  Let's say that there is another group of people that 
>> thinks that all people with diseases like that are touched by the 
>> devil and should be immediately killed.  Let's also say that the 
>> choice of whether or not to let these people speak openly about this 
>> for some reason fell on my shoulders.  Would I choose to keep them 
>> quiet for fear of others coming to a similar conclusion and jumping 
>> on the bandwagon, or would I choose to let them have their voice?
>>
>> I would choose to let them speak.  There is a practical reason for 
>> this, first, because if you try to shut them up they will just speak 
>> their ideas behind closed doors and people who disagree with them 
>> will not be there to counter their arguments.  The main reason, 
>> though, is that I truly believe in freedom of expression, even if the 
>> topic of conversation is painful for me.  I can still choose whether 
>> or not to join in or to let them speak uncontested.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm a Professor of Philosophy. That would be a strange profession 
>>> for someone with a fear of ideas. A better explanation of why you 
>>> can't see what's wrong with asking whether or not slavery is wrong 
>>> is that you are seriously lacking in empathetic imagination. That's 
>>> why I think it might benefit you to find your own personal example 
>>> and reason to my point of view via some form of analogy.
>>>
>>> Long answer: Kidnapping is clearly wrong. Putting someone in chains, 
>>> throwing them on a boat, and taking them to some other continent is 
>>> clearly wrong. Holding someone against their will is clearly wrong. 
>>> Forcing someone to work without pay is clearly wrong. Beating an 
>>> innocent person is clearly wrong. Rape is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> The history of American slavery is a history of kidnapping, 
>>> unwarranted incarceration, forced labor, physical violence, rape, 
>>> etc. To entertain the idea that slavery is not wrong is to entertain 
>>> the idea that nothing is wrong.
>>
>> I don't disagree with you.
>>
>>>
>>> Now maybe that is your view. Maybe you believe that nothing is right 
>>> or wrong. But why not just talk about that issue? Why wrap it up in 
>>> a conversation that is offensive to a great number of people. If 
>>> you're an idiot I would understand. Likewise if you were part of 
>>> some radical right wing group. You offer another possibility: you 
>>> could be completely lacking in empathy, a sociopath who doesn't care 
>>> whether or not he hurts the feelings of others. I think that is 
>>> covered by "idiot."
>>
>> Just to be clear about something, we are not talking about my views 
>> on slavery.  I have not expressed them in this argument.  I do 
>> believe in right and wrong, even if I don't think such things are 
>> strictly black and white.
>>
>>>
>>> So here is a revision of my technical term "idiot" in case I use it 
>>> again. An idiot is someone who is so lacking in common sense or 
>>> empathetic imagination that he is willing to say something that even 
>>> the below average person would know better than to say.
>>>
>>> Note that the quote I used by Wilson to begin this conversation was 
>>> this: "The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are 
>>> treated well." Clearly he can't adopt the view that there is no 
>>> right or wrong since slavery is only permitted by Christians if they 
>>> treat the slaves "well." And I don't think he's an idiot, given the 
>>> my technical definition. That leaves one option. Unless I'm wrong 
>>> and he is a sociopath.
>>
>> Donovan stated that he supported freedom of speech and free dialog.  
>> I back him up on that.  You stated that people who tolerated talk of 
>> slavery were either idiots or right wing nutjobs (paraphrasing).  I 
>> disagree with that.  Donovan's point about free dialog is a good 
>> one.  If Doug wants to come on this list and argue his case re: 
>> slavery, I encourage him to do that.  Because otherwise, how are you, 
>> or Donovan, or anyone else going to explain why he's wrong if we 
>> never have the conversation?  That's all I'm asking.  It doesn't even 
>> matter what the subject is, really.
>>
>> Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110403/72914f69/attachment.html