Massimo Pigliucci, Abortion, and the Scope of Tradition – UPDATED »« Greta Speaking at SASHACon in Columbia MO, and in Boston!

Comments

  1. Menyambal says

    He did it well.

    I have learned a lot, these last few days. For me, at least, this has been good.

    Thanks for posting.

  2. Stacy says

    Props to James.

    Beautifully written, too. It’s going on my “I wish everyone would read this” list.

  3. carlie says

    That was a really well done retraction, very thought out and cognizant of everything involved. Thanks to him for doing so.

  4. says

    well, that’s at least something.
    I read it. Then I scrolled down a bit, noted that the topmost comment is Steersman, and NOPE’d the fuck outta there. Don’t need the opinion of the dude who thinks bigoted slurs are ok if they’re used to cut down minorities that have gotten too uppity.

  5. Steve Caldwell says

    Well … I did write to Mr. Silverman last night and he did answer my email tonight.

    Based on the email, he isn’t thinking an apology is necessary at this time. Seems like a repeat of Ronald Lindsay’s initial response after the Women in Secularism conference.

  6. johnthedrunkard says

    Like Shoa-deniers and anti-vaxxers , the anti-abortion movements ALL seem to be driven by unreasoned emotions with ‘facts’ endlessly (re)marshalled to prop up the a priori position.

    Thus ‘debating’ them gives passive endorsement to worthless ideas. But how do we answer bogus claims without repeating them. If believers are impervious to information, what venue is available to reach those who are capable of learning?

  7. jflcroft says

    Thanks for the re-post, Greta! Just out of interest, are there comments on my blog? If so, I cannot see them (for whatever reason). Just want to make sure I’m not missing anything.

  8. Greta Christina says

    Just out of interest, are there comments on my blog? If so, I cannot see them (for whatever reason). Just want to make sure I’m not missing anything.

    jflcroft @ #9: Alas, right out of the gate, you’ve got Steersman, a notorious SlymePitter and MRA, derailing things into the usual MRA talking points. But there are also some nice, supportive comments and apparently sincere attempts to engage on the issue.

  9. John Horstman says

    @johnthedrunkard #8:

    Thus ‘debating’ them gives passive endorsement to worthless ideas. But how do we answer bogus claims without repeating them. If believers are impervious to information, what venue is available to reach those who are capable of learning?

    I see this as the central paradox of postmodern understandings of information and discourse. Critique inevitably necessitates stating (or re-stating) the position one wishes to critique, which fundamentally reinforces the idea. As it’s a paradox, there isn’t really a resolution; best practice is to simply try to pay attention to context and try to predict whether any given action will do more good or harm on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we’re in lose-lose situations; if we can’t do no harm, it’s preferable to do the least harm (or to do harm to the party/ies best able to cope with that harm).

Leave a Reply