Response to Kairosfocus

[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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

Joe:

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.

KF

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.

 

11 thoughts on “Response to Kairosfocus

  1. I’d leave it at that, Lizzie.
    Anyone with a Thinking Brain can evaluate the arguments pro and con CSI – although I’d recommend they not forget that according to KF (and Joe), counting bits in an English description of an aardvark proves something to do with CSI (Well, it might indicate that the description was “designed” , no problem there – but the animal itself? not so much)

    And do I see that KF is close to threatening a lawsuit? That would be fun!

    The whole of KF’s rant is the attempt at intimidation one would expect from the holder of such an indefensible position, and should be treated with contempt.

  2. damitall2:
    I’d leave it at that, Lizzie.
    Anyone with a Thinking Brain can evaluate the arguments pro and con CSI – although I’d recommend they not forget that according to KF (and Joe), counting bits in an English description of an aardvark proves something to do with CSI (Well, it might indicate that the description was “designed” , no problem there – but the animal itself? not so much)

    And do I see that KF is close to threatening a lawsuit?That would be fun!

    The whole of KF’s rant is the attempt at intimidation one would expect from the holder of such an indefensible position, and should be treated with contempt.

    Yeah, I would have ignored it if it hadn’t been for the lawsuit threat. I guess I should have ignored it anyway 🙂

    But a girl’s gotta rant.

  3. CSI is part of some nefarious Creationist, fundamentalist, right-wing theocratic plot to subvert science and civilisation alike.

    Not actionable in a court of law because it is demonstrably true. In an American court, one has a wonderfully reputable witness: a right wing Christian judge.

    Bluster away, KF. Wedge document. Logos theology of St John’s gospel rewritten in the idiom of information theory. No-one is fooled. Your denials are just as ridiculous as Ted Bundy’s, KF. Everybody here knows.

    Incidentally , after a long battle initiated by the suing of Simon Singh after he exposed the woo in chiropractic, the law on libel has been changed here this week.
    Not that it has any bearing on KF’s idiotic schtick, but it is a cause to celebrate.

  4. Is KF complaining that American law isn’t a useful tool for harassing Dr. Liddle? That’s a feature, not a bug.

  5. What a whiny big baby Kairosfocus is.
    Not satisfied merely to stomp all over his own threads on his home forum with his great big boots of bannination and “correction for the record” – he has to cry that his will should rule in every other forum.

    This is just the start of his temper tantrum:

    …if they make themselves willing harbourers and enablers of and accessories to slander…

    Yes, how dare anyone on the entire planet hold out against Kairosfocus’ bawling? How dare someone exercise their rights of free speech and free association, when they ought to refuse association with anyone who has ever said anything mean to Kairosfocus?
    Mommy, mommy, they’re being mean to me! Make them stop! Mommy, make them stop!
    Yes, dear, I know you’re not a resident of the USA and you don’t have to respect the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. But the rest of us do, and that makes us better persons than you. Not to mention, that you are a resident of a British territory (which does not have that constitution) which does have exactly those principles embodied in common law.

    And this special little bit:

    accessories to slander

    is astonishingly grandiose. Kairosfocus, Is it true that you know for a fact that someone who posts here (eg. Alan Fox) has indeed committed slander? If not, Kairosfocus, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?If not, how dare you claim that we here (“EL and the rest of the TSZ crowd” in your words) are “accessories” to that non-proven and quite likely non-existent slander?

    Stop being such a stupid big baby.

    Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb.
    No joie de vivre, just endless hours of tedium …

    — credit, Mark Graham, Austin Lounge Lizards

  6. I’d give him a pass on that one. The distinction is not observed as strictly as it used to be, and some jurisdictions have abolished the distinction. In practice even many attorneys use the terms interchangeably in casual conversation. I do, and I’ve handled defamation actions.

Leave a Reply