[23rd May, 2013 As Kairosfocus continues to reiterate his objections to the views I express in this post, I am taking the opportunity today to clarify my own position:
- I do not think that OM was calling KF a Nazi, merely drawing attention to commonality between KF’s apparent views on homosexuality as immoral and unnatural to those of Nazis who also regarded homosexuality as immoral and unnatural. However, I accept that one huge difference is that KF appears to considers that homosexuality is non-genetic and can be cured; whereas Nazis considered that it was genetic and should be eradicated.
- I agree with KF that inflammatory comparisons with those one disagrees with to Nazis is unhelpful and divisive. I will not censor such comparisons, but I will register my objections to them. This includes OM’s comparison (although I find KF’s views on homosexuality morally abhorrent, and factually incorrect, his view is profoundly different to those of the Nazis), and it also includes KF’s frequent comparisons of those of us who hold that a Darwinist account of evolution is scientifically justified to those “good Germans” who turned a blind eye to Nazi-ism.
- When referring to CSI as “bogus” I mean it is fallacious and misleading. I do not mean that those who think it is calculable and meaningful are being deliberately fraudulent. I interpret AF to mean the same thing by the term. However, even if he does not, I defend his right to say so on this blog, just as I will defend KF’s right to defend CSI (or even his views on homosexuality) on this blog.]
I will move this post to the sandbox shortly, but as I am banned from UD, and therefore cannot respond to this in the place where it was issued, I am doing so here. Kairosfocus writes:
If that is so, then this is now a test of EL and the rest of the TSZ crowd.
For, if they make themselves willing harbourers and enablers of and accessories to slander, willful continued misrepresentations held on to in the teeth of step by strep correction then they remove themselves from the circle of civil discussion, period.
AF has openly — on demonstrated false accusation — stated that CSI is “a bogus concept.” In the teeth of simple examples and more sophisticated ones, involving metrics relevant to the origin of life and of major body plans, he has tried to suggest that it is useless for calculation, that it is not measurable, and that it is part of some nefarious Creationist, fundamentalist, right-wing theocratic plot to subvert science and civilisation alike.
When he has been corrected, step by step, point by point, he has doubled down on misrepresentations, showing himself to be guilty of willfully continued misrepresentations. As well as the slander by false accusation and malicious insinuation already seen. (And recall this is in a context where not so long ago there was an attempt at TSZ tracing to OM and RTH — enabled by the TSZ crowd including EL the blog owner — to suggest that I am a Nazi by invidious association; which BTW EL I am pretty sure is actionable in British law . . . American law on tort being currently in a first class mess on matters linked to defamation.)
So, now we have come to the point where TSZ will need to step up to the plate and show its true colours.
I, for one, on track record, am not holding my breath in hopes that the leadership will come down on the side of basic civility.
Kairosfocus, this is outrageous. Nobody here, to my knowledge, has suggested that you are a Nazi, and I certainly have not. And people here are allowed to state their opinions as to whether “CSI is a bogus concept” whether that is a correct view or not, just as people are also entitled to state that morality for atheists is a stolen concept. Stating such is not the same thing as accusing one’s proponents of deliberate deceit – I myself think that CSI is a bogus concept, not because its proponents are dishonest, but because, when applied to biological entities, it simply doesn’t work, for the self-evident reason that it contains a parameter which is non-computable without knowing the answer to the question asked in the first place (“could natural processes have produced this?”).
You may not understand this argument; but that does not mean it is necessarily incorrect, nor that the people making it are being dishonest. The fault in understanding may be yours.
More seriously, your insistence that those who disagree with you are engaged in “slander”, while simultaneously alleging that they themselves are committing actionable offences, is, well, let’s say, ironic.
Good and intelligent people can disagree. Moreover, you are invited to come over here and discuss our disagreements in person. I’d be delighted.
But I’d point out that for you to issue accusations of me at UD, where I cannot respond, while an open invitation exists for you to address me and other posters directly here, is, at the very least, discourteous. You may need to reregister, however, as the user database was lost in the crash.