The use of argumentation implies that one has renounced resorting to force alone, that value is attached to gaining the adherence of one's interlocutor by means of reasoned persuasion, and that one is not regarding him as an object, but appealing to his free judgment. Resource to argumentation assumes the establishment of a community of minds, which, while it lasts, excludes the use of violence. (55, emphasis added)Reasoning /= threat.
"Intelligent reasoning" = ??
21 comments:
What was the alleged threat?
What violence or use of force was stated?
Answer those or admit you are an intellectual coward.
I notice that you didn't use any argumentaion. You stuck your nose into something you weren't a part of.
YOU didn't ask for clarification.
YOU then posted something irrelevant to what I posted. As if genes expressed in rods tell us anything about the evolution of the vision system.
And YOU thought you could hide behind your computer thereby escaping any consequences.
And in the end if you really want to stop Intelligent Design all you have to do is to substantiate the anti-ID position.
What is also funny, in a sad way, is that you disparage a 2001 physiology & anatomy text and then use a blurb from 1969 as if it is some kind of authority.
BTW what happens when there isn't any reasoning with the opponents, which is the case when dealing with you anti-ID zealots?
Guess who said the following:
"The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.”
More threats of physical violence in that then I have ever posted.
Joe, you can't have your beating and your love-beads at the same time.
Just for the hell of it, could you tell me what the point of your posts was again. I mean, you did all of the following, why:
1. Published Hermagoras's address.
2. Said you'd rather meet him
3. Said you'd do anything it takes
4. Did all of this on the blog instead of by email
What would the purpose of all that be?
Please try to be consistent with your last answers in this vein.
1. Published Hermagoras's address.
I didn't publish his address.
This is why no one wants to deal with you Erik- you are twisted liar.
I'm still waiting for the alleged threat- IOW what violence or use of force was stated?
Joe is correct that he didn't publish my address. He did however do all the other things you mention. Also, he's put my name and my institutional affiliation in the titles of several posts on his blog, and no longer refers to me by my blog name. He did mention that he was close to where I live on Saturday, so I am safe to assume that he has found out my home address.
He'll say no, these are not threats. He's just saying that he could hurt me if he wants to, as he's nearby, knows where I live and where I work, he's been near my place last weekend, he was with his boys, etc.
But, Joe has made these two statements --
"And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face,"
and
"And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it"
--in response to my question:
"Should I feel physically or otherwise threatened, Joe?"
Joe's answer: "And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it."
Again, for the slower readers --
Me to Joe: "Should I feel physically or otherwise threatened?"
Joe to me: "Yes."
H
A further point: I asked Joe if I should "feel physically or otherwise threatened" after he published my name and institutional affiliation on his blog. A reasonable response would have been "No, of course not." That is what I hoped he would say.
In fact, however, he answered "yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it." In the context of my question, this clearly includes physical threat. I took him at his word.
Right. Interesting, Joe. You completely ignored the substance of my last comment. Why was that? Do you accept that you did the 2-4 things in my comment as well as the other things in Hermagoras's following comment?
And really, the important thing was, what was the purpose of doing these things?
Thanks for ignoring.
Kellogg you are delusional.
This is what I said- the FULL content:
David,
I do not take kindly to being misrepresented.
YOU are the one coming after me with misrepresentations and nonsense.
I will not continue to stand for it.
And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it.
The choice is yours.
I could easily say that I felt and feel threatened by your ignorant misrepresentations.
IOW if you don't like being messed with (which is exactly all I am doing) then you shouldn't mess with me by misrepresenting what I post.
You also shouldn't stick your nose into something that you were never part of.
That is just asking for trouble.
The bottom line is David, you couldn't substantiate anything that is being debated- pertaining to biology- if your life depended on it.
If you didn't like my question all you had to do is send me an email or drop by my blog and ask for clarification.
You didn't do that and instead choose to misrepresent what I said and post something totally irrelevant as if it refuted me.
Then when I pointed that out you just carried on with more of the same.
And for all you know I could be 5' tall 120 lbs and couldn't physically hurt anyone.
However I am very happy that you have your tits in a twist and your panties in a knot over this.
IOW this is going exactly as I planned.
But I am not beyond contacting NU. After all a couple of anti-IDists did that to me...
clowny,
I am a "counter-puncher". That means iof I am slinging something it means that someone shot first.
Ask David why he chose to blog instead of sending me an email.
I also think it is cute that you think I am answerable to you.
OK, OK:
And really, the important thing was, what was the purpose of doing these things?
To mess with him just like he is messing with me.
But I guess it is OK for anti-IDists to physically threaten IDists.
The quote I provided in my second comment was from none other than PZ Meyers.
Has anyone from the anti-ID camp jumped on him for that?
If not you guys are two-faced punks...
He'll say no, these are not threats.
Again what is the threat?
Be specific.
He's just saying that he could hurt me if he wants to, as he's nearby, knows where I live and where I work, he's been near my place last weekend, he was with his boys, etc.
Where did I say ANYTHING about hurting you?
You are getting more dishonest by the second.
Perhaps I do need to take this up with NU.
First of all, Joe, my offer of a performance class still stands. No charge for the first week. I'll even throw in a writing lesson.
Try not to mix your metaphors; it gets messy.
1. If you are a counter-puncher, please keep the language germane to sweet science.
2. Or, if someone shot at you, you have two options. The first is, obviously, to call the police. The second option is to start your paragraph with something like, "I'm mad of Kevlar..."
Joe:
You were messing with him?
Okay, I'll buy that.
1. Do you think it appropriate to "mess with people" by publishing their places of work and real name? Why or why not?
2. Do you see any situation in which "I'll do whatever it takes" may imply a threat?
Two comments above, the sentence should obviously read, "I'm made of Kevlar..."
Oops.
As to why I didn't send Joe G an email: the answer is simple. I don't know Joe's email. It's not on his blog, as far as I can tell, and it's not in his blogger profile. I actually looked because I wanted to send him an email first. But I didn't find one, which is why I blogged about the issue. So it's just silly to say that I should have sent him an email. There's no "contact Joe G" link on his blog home page, or on his blogger page, or anything like that.
I still don't know his email, or his real name. (Nor do I care to, by the way.)
Reality demonstrates that you're a *&#)%!!* twat.
[/JoeG]
Joe G - obvious typo: You put "Counter puncher" when you meant "Pillow Muncher".
I'm retyping this comment with the name redacted.
Joe writes,
"Over on his blog, [name and location withheld] has stated that I have physically threatened him.
However when pressed for an answer as to the alleged threat he clams up.
This is tha [sic] anti-ID way.
That is make an accusation but never substantiate it."
My claims have been thoroughly substantiated here, as Joe knows (since he has responded on this thread). However, I'm not going to respond on his blog, which deserves to be ignored.
Because of this incident, I have removed my email from my blogger profile and identifying information from my other blog.
Joe G is nothing more than a pussy.
Post a Comment