HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 31, 2006 John has switched tactics. He began with one part name calling and vilification (which he complained about later when I returned it in kind) and two parts real debate. Now he's moved to two parts name calling, and one part irrelevant side issue. He still hasn't responded to many of the debate items that he himself began. He seems to willfully ignore, or perhaps is troubled by, his silly attack on science both as an institution and science in terms of the folks who practice it. This time, John attacked (blamed?) my writing style for the pseudo-hostile environment in our public exchange. First, John suggests that the topic of my original article wasn't clear. Make no mistake, it was written specifically in response to the stem cell legislation that Bush has vowed to veto, however, it also applied to the pro-life movement in general, focusing on “life at conception”. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that I wrote in a confusing manner. I explained it to him rather clearly after each of his recent responses! I guess the third time is a charm? ;) Each time I was careful to mention that John had ignored that issue entirely, probably not because he misunderstood, but rather, because it presented issues with his arguments. John goes on about potential and gives analogies, but still refuses to mention fertility clinics and how his analogy fails under those conditions. Instead, he expresses hope for getting stem cells by other methods. I have no problem with alternative methods of acquiring stem cells, however, I also have no issue with using our current stock of fetuses for research - by far the best way at the moment. Using them isn't murder, it isn't a modern scourge, and one need not be a humanist to agree. John refuses to address the other problems that “potential” gives us. Indeed, they've already been “created” and they will die anyway, used for research or not. I ask again, where is John's article, given his stance on potential and abortion even at that early stage, on fertility clinics and contraception? Clinics keep making more fertilized eggs bound for the freezer! Perhaps in his fourth or fifth response? Next John complains, again, about name calling, but doesn't see the irony of associating murder, immorality and cruelty to animals with a scourge of humanism and science. Fred, on the other hand, has been feeling rather cocky and he has been cracking jokes and coining neologisms, as for example his bizarre neologism "unindisherdisherouter." To me, at least, this neologism has no clear meaning. The fact is often a neologism is coined and employed by someone who has lost intellectual clarity and has become more or less irrational. In my own articles concerning the abortion issue I try to be lucid and clear, not deceptive, confusing, misleading, or irrational. Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that folks use neologisms when they run out of real arguments to make and have entered into some irrational phase; I didn't use it to make any arguments, merely to make a colorful title. Let's also assume that it was thoroughly confusing; its “confusion” had no effect on the meat of my article, meat which John willfully ignores ;) John finishes with one last evasion of discussion of any real points about abortion with this odd little nugget: Finally, in response to the many Lord Russell quotations Fred Smith presents, there is a deeper and creepier side to Lord Russell. For example, here's a pair of Russell quotes that might make your skin crawl when you read them together: I cannot grasp the relevance. I included the first quote myself; John acts as if this statement about science is shocking. As to the second, I would guess that Russell is joking about the University system. I've heard many esteemed academics joke in this manner. I've heard Stephen Hawking say that he went into theoretical physics because it involves no real work, for example! I'm just not sure if that second quote is enough to throw mud on Russell. Joking about your own profession seems, well, rather common. We shouldn't forget that the American college system is still widely considered the best in the world. Surely John has “Yogic-power” jokes in his line of work too. Maybe he misread a fortune once due to a streak on his crystal ball, or perhaps he tried to alter his state of mind with bad drugs? I'm sure his world is full of amusing anecdotes. Perhaps he'd be kind enough to share a few with us in his future writings. [Relax John, I jest – just like Bertrand ;)] It seems another UK article about me (and Russel) from John has just materialized. It seems that John, on second thought, realized that perhaps Bert was making a funny ;) I was going to add a quote from Daniel Dennett, an American philosopher and atheist, where he likens tenured professors with sea creatures that grow brains just long enough to find a place to settle; once settled, they ingest those brains having no further use for them. I'm not quite sure what to make of his Russell article. Certainly he was a complex man. I'm also not sure which mark made of straw those quotes missed. I wasn't writing a bio on Russel, I was laying out quotes by famous humanists. Most of the quotes weren't from Russel, his quotes were just near the end, leading me to wonder if John read them all. I'm not sure what John implied with the fear of death bit. Having a fear of death is normal and healthy, indeed, it keeps people alive! I think most religions are based on dealing with the consequences of this fear. After all, most other animals show no signs that they realize their own finite life-spans. Our fear reaches new levels – a cruel side effect of our intelligence perhaps. Or is it? Without a healthy fear of death, would future humans care enough to attempt to “fix” the Sun or move to alternate star systems? After all, if this life is just a drop in a bucket compared to our “real” lives as immortal beings, then who really cares? My guess is that Christians in a fox-hole are no more at peace than atheists in a fox-hole. An atheist worries about non-existence, a Christian worries about going to Hell. Many atheists have written that they've conquered their fear, and, I salute them to an extent. I would worry much about humanity if we ever found a sure fire way to nullify this most basic instinct however... Anyway, the tone of John's latest piece was conciliatory – if John wants to apologize for calling humanists a “potential scourge of modern times”, attacking science education and comparing it to immoral and cruel behavior and likening abortion supporters to murders, I shall accept and forgive him, though I would still like to see an article attacking contraception and/or fertility clinics. I think that debate is too important these days to throw out in favor of pseudo-hostile bantering. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
