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

[Joe Campbell]

No. But likely their cars would be smeared with feces or something like that. Again, you are missing the point.

Start talking about the issue and see where you get.



On Apr 3, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 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> 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/20110403/018c4796/attachment-0001.html