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

[Joe Campbell]

Another thing which you keep miss even though I point it out every time we
have this stupid conversation.

I don't care that Wilson talks about slavery. I hope he keeps it up. I just
want to be there to point out that the speech is offensive and that he is a
bigot.

I wish Wilson would share his ideas with even more people as I wish that you
would. I have told you to bring this up on a street corner in Spokane but
you won't do it. I honestly wish that you and Wilson would start this
conversation on a street corner in Newark, New Jersey since that appears to
be the only way that you might get a sense of how enraged folks are to
consider this a debatable conversation, how callous you are about basic
human emotions.

If I call you "fat" I'm not really trying to have a conversation with you.
I'm not really trying to convince you of my point of view. I'm trying to
insult you, hurt your feelings and that is it.

Wilson and others who "debate" about this topic are not, in my opinion,
trying to discourse. They are trying to enrage. I don't want to part of that
crap. You don't seem to mind enraging people in the name of free speech.
Fine. I only ask that you do it more often and not with me.

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>
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/d59bdcd5/attachment.html