What level of fear is it that makes people demand things of others without being willing to engage in the very thing they demand others do? What level of fear is it that deleting comments, then lying about the content of those comments, gives comfort?
Why would I accede to a demand, when previous attempts have proven pointless.
I’m perfectly willing to engage in the conversation and make the case, once the one making the demand demonstrates a willingness to engage in a significant manner.
Despite what’s being said, I have indicated that all that stands between the demand bring met are a couple of minor things to demonstrate good faith.
1. Answer the questions that have been dodged since November.
2. Either correct the lie about answering questions in the last two threads, or answer the unanswered questions.
3. Pick one of specific issue from the list of books and articles I provided the last time I was faced with a similar demand, and address that one issue thoroughly.
In closing, I find it reprehensible that any human being who claims to be “extremely moral”, would be able to refer to the use of the word “retard” as “vile, oppressive”,and various other adjectives, can only muster, in my opinion it’s a “bad decision” to abort those who might be born with a disability. To shire that morality is based in subjective consensus by a society, while trying to impose his version of morality on others.
Mostly, it’s just sad to see one who claims to follow Jesus engaging in these attempts to silence those whose disagree, and impose his personal opinions on others.
As always, all are welcome, but some have some work to do before their comments can stay.
7 comments:
Something else that came to mind with regard this issue of word choice: Think of all the ways people have been "marginalized" aside from words used for the purpose. Blacks were lynched. Do we not realize how using rope is offensive to blacks? No, because it isn't the rope that is offensive but how it was used that was. The same is true of whips, for example. We don't outlaw their use, either in civil law or in social law.
I defy anyone to make the connection of using a term meant to describe the poor quality of an idea, comment or proposal (and by doing so, admittedly, also the thinking ability of the person stating the idea, comment or proposal) to those whose mental impairments make it unlikely that they would come up with a better idea, comment or proposal. The point is that the former should know better, should be more capable of demonstrating wisdom. Said another way, I wouldn't expect someone certified as having some mental impairment or learning disability to be brilliant...but I would expect a better indication of brilliance from one who ostensibly isn't impaired.
Using a word like "retarded" in reference to an actual mentally retarded person can and is used as a pejorative. I resent the suggestion that I use the term in that manner simply because I used it at all. THAT is the issue that Dan ignores in order to grab unjustly a position of moral superiority. On what basis can he make such a suggestion or assume such a thing is true of me simply because I used the word in what was an appropriate manner given the context of the conversation? Clearly I was referring to no one else but him and his comments. His alleged concern for the disabled is unconvincing given how he has used similar words often in referring to others. His excuse is that this particular word is somehow worse without demonstrating just how that is. "The other words are no longer used that way, or mean the same thing". Perhaps not commonly, but they still are and do.
Thus, the fear has to do with what was NOT addressed in preference of focusing on the use of the word. The "outrage" is no more than a ploy, not a legitimate concern for a people that are neither addressed by use of the word, nor will ever know it was used in the first place.
The problem Dan has is that under his construct of subjective, societal consensus driven morality there is no moral high ground. Because the subjective consensus of any other society is equally as valid.
So, when Dan critics Muslims for the aspects of Islamic society he finds troublesome, he has no basis to do so other than personal preference. Clearly Islam has decided that it’s immorsl to engage in homosexual acts and that it’s moralto kill those who do. Because they’re society has come to a subjective consensus.
This subjective societal consensus model virtually guarantees that nothing pushed by a minority can be moral, until they can convince a majority. In other words, at one point slavery was moral and abolition was immoral.
I don't know who this majority would be that would be firm about the use of certain words while at the same time leave it up to individuals whose life has value enough to defend so long as that life has yet to emerge from the womb. I'm not sure if it's a majority at all, or simply who's in power. There's certainly no majority at Dan's blog at present deciding what can be said, how it must be said and who can say what.
That’s one of the problems, the other is that he demands proof from others, while assuming that his position doesn’t need proof. Or, by offering the existence of his construct as its own proof.
What’s illustrative, is the fact that (by his societal consensus) standard, it’s completely moral to abort children who might have disabilities, it’s completely moral to abort for literally any reason. But Dan wants the appearance of being a christian so he gives his unstinting support to those who want to devalue people who might have disabilities, while claiming that he thinks it’s a “bad idea”. It’s a classic example of not seeing the speck in his own eye.
And of course, simply by NOT opposing abortion, he is demonstrating the worst form of marginalizing one can imagine. And he defends himself by the false notion that we can't know if the unborn are people, as if scientifically (you know...where the "expertise" is) there is any doubt. I mean really...if ever there was a legitimate consensus in science, it is in the fact of the unborn's humanity.
I just posted this, it’ll be interesting to see if it survives the purge
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-many-botched-cases-would-it-take-to-end-euthanasia-of-the-vulnerable/2018/01/24/bf311400-0124-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.b9db6ae342f4
Is this enough devaluation to get your unequivocal agreement that it’s objectively wrong, or is this just another example of what you opine is a “bad decision”?
This is clearly “on topic”, it’ll be interesting if it survives. I’ll keep it for posterity if you decide to euthanize it.
Yes, that in an area where he’s a science denier.
He clearly wants his positions to be treated as if they are objectively true, without the burden to actually demonstrate that.
Post a Comment