Discussing evil is not wrong

And on Twitter we can see “edgy” Simon Longstaff commenting on the issue.

dangeOh gee people read the session title – silly silly people – they should have simply assumed the session title had nothing to do with the content, apparently.

Only, the title is so unambiguous, isn’t it. “Honour killing is morally justified.” It says what it says. It doesn’t even pose it as a question.

Also? Saying “honour  killing is morally justified” is not the same thing as “discussing evil.” The right title for the latter would have been, say, “Discussing the evil of honour killing.”

But he’s getting lots of attention for the FODI; no doubt that was the goal all along.


  1. thephilosophicalprimate says

    Seems to me that this jerk’s entire conference is an exercise in JAQing off, and this “controversy” was deliberately and amorally manufactured for promotional purposes. His spectacularly dishonest way of referring to a speech titled “Honour Killings are Morally Justified” as “The session to explore ‘honor killing'” might as well have been followed with perpetual refrain we hear from all the REAL victims of internet hate and bigotry, privileged white males: “The purpose of this conference is JUST ASKING QUESTIONS! HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE ON OUR FREEZE PEACH!”

  2. says

    Yeah, Simon clearly doesn’t understand that discussing evil is not the same thing as giving a platform to someone to debate whether or not women are human beings. So-called “honor killings” are morally unjustifiable. They do not have a place at the discussion table.

  3. militantagnostic says

    After reading the subsequent post, I invite Simon Longstaff FODI to FOADIAF

  4. karmacat says

    Even if it had just been “Discussing Honor Killings” would have been better. Not great, but better

  5. plainenglish says

    “How I Feel Better by Torturing my Children to Death” (a talk about parental rights because God)

  6. Decker says

    He’s an idiot, like so many other Russel Brand types that take themselves to be cutting edge and transgressive.

  7. deepak shetty says

    I interpret “dangerous ideas” that are things that are against the norm but would/could lead to a better world (e.g. getting rid of various superstitions or perhaps proposing an alternate form of governance)

    I never thought that some people interpret it literally – Like detonating nuclear weapons is a dangerous idea .

  8. johnthedrunkard says

    There is a ‘meta-stupidity’ in making honor killings a public topic by framing the discussion as ADVOCACY, and apparently selecting a speaker who wishes to excuse the inexcusable.

    White western men are not burning school girls and murdering their sisters as normal, socially acceptable practices. But we do have a subset of ‘chattering classes’ who are willing to justify any crime so long as the perpetrator has brown skin. And this class seems to include a fair share of women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *