<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Another thing which you keep miss even though I point it out every time we have this stupid conversation.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
</div><div><br>On Apr 3, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<br>
If someone wanted to start a thread about either slavery or the
morality of feeding Christians to the lions, I would not object. <br>
<br>
Would you?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 04/03/2011 07:06 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Bad example. Obviously this example is something that does
not make you want to punch someone in the face.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Apr 2, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> On 04/02/2011 12:51 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't disagree with you.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
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."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
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.<br>
<br>
Note that the quote I used by Wilson to begin this
conversation was this: "<font face="Times New Roman">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.</font> <font face="Times New Roman">Unless I'm wrong and he is a
sociopath.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></div>