tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post3625709186959066800..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: Dogmatism and ToleranceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-75584885363267318002013-03-18T09:36:04.771-07:002013-03-18T09:36:04.771-07:00Regardless of what I think, I recognize it's i...Regardless of what I think, I recognize it's irritating when someone claims you said something you say you didn't. Consider this part of the discussion done.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-47068651033856818702013-03-17T23:21:42.805-07:002013-03-17T23:21:42.805-07:00I have explained mutiple times why I asked you wha...I have explained mutiple times why I asked you what I asked, and you still keep falsely accusing me of double standards. So, I hope your readers willl read my posts more carefully than you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-54261234317912969772013-03-17T14:17:09.390-07:002013-03-17T14:17:09.390-07:00My readers are smart enough to know a double stand...My readers are smart enough to know a double standard when they see one. You can say it's false, but I've explained multiple times why I made the claim.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-19053082247551878632013-03-17T07:58:42.622-07:002013-03-17T07:58:42.622-07:00OK, it's your blog. I think the readers are wi...OK, it's your blog. I think the readers are wise enough to see that your accusation is false. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-65007786565293895162013-03-16T16:40:01.915-07:002013-03-16T16:40:01.915-07:00I'm not, but I'm willing to let readers de...I'm not, but I'm willing to let readers decide for themselves. Let's just agree to disagree, Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-89543254592277091262013-03-16T16:15:37.248-07:002013-03-16T16:15:37.248-07:00I am willing to let this go after you've withd...I am willing to let this go after you've withdrawn your unfounded accusation that I was adopting double standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-67064129380350570242013-03-16T15:47:11.847-07:002013-03-16T15:47:11.847-07:00Well, I already intervened with Crude. I'm no...Well, I already intervened with Crude. I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself on this over and over again. Anyway, I'm willing to let this go if you are. Be well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-64760723858254711402013-03-16T15:43:38.495-07:002013-03-16T15:43:38.495-07:00I asked you to intervene with Crude because I want...I asked you to intervene with Crude because I wanted you to be treat him the way you treated me. That's all. So, no double standards by me. <br />I do not make a big stink of this either, but I would like you to withdraw your unfounded accusations.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-85949304789887835602013-03-16T13:41:21.779-07:002013-03-16T13:41:21.779-07:00I did treat Crude the way I treated you, although ...I did treat Crude the way I treated you, although I prefer to say that I intervened with Crude the way I did with you. That wasn't the double standard. You claimed that your comments about Thomas and Craig weren't insulting because they were about their claims and not them personally. Yet, when Crude makes a comment about one of your claims and not you personally, you take it as an insult. I'm just suggesting that you treat both as insulting, or else neither as insulting.<br /><br />Make sense? I'm not trying to make a big stink out of this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-63982322612141422392013-03-16T11:03:39.239-07:002013-03-16T11:03:39.239-07:00Why am I adopting double standards by asking you t...Why am I adopting double standards by asking you to treat Crude the same way you treated me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-18404590515797444562013-03-16T09:24:32.404-07:002013-03-16T09:24:32.404-07:00And I explained why. Here it is for the third tim...And I explained why. Here it is for the third time: "The odd thing is, Crude called your claim (not you) laughable. On the criterion you provide - that your quotation marks only had to do with some of the things Thomas and Craig claim, and not with them personally, you're actually the one adopting a double-standard."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-21197634800338445672013-03-16T01:12:19.899-07:002013-03-16T01:12:19.899-07:00The problem is that while nothing I asked or did w...The problem is that while nothing I asked or did was remotely inconsistent, you accused me of applying double standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-48719658954696919652013-03-15T11:40:38.452-07:002013-03-15T11:40:38.452-07:00I allowed both comments to be published. I asked ...I allowed both comments to be published. I asked both of you to dial it back. Where's the problem? Moreover, you never answered my question. What was wrong with my claim?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-30270278734642334252013-03-15T11:17:28.656-07:002013-03-15T11:17:28.656-07:00I asked you to be consistent by either making a re...I asked you to be consistent by either making a remark about both Crude's use of 'laughable' and my use of quotation marks or to make no remarks at all. There is nothing even remotely inconsistent in what I asked. IOW if you allow Crude's use of 'laughable', you should also allow my use of quotation marks, and if you don't allow my quotation marks you should not allow Crude's use of 'laughable'.<br />So, again: stop claiming that I use double standards.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-63138070955789260542013-03-15T09:35:43.985-07:002013-03-15T09:35:43.985-07:00What's wrong with my claim?
"The odd thi...What's wrong with my claim?<br /><br />"The odd thing is, Crude called your claim (not you) laughable. On the criterion you provide - that your quotation marks only had to do with some of the things Thomas and Craig claim, and not with them personally, you're actually the one adopting a double-standard."<br /><br />Either you insulted me by insulting Thomas's intelligence and Crude insulted you by calling your defense laughable, or else nobody insulted anyone. Which is it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-45192369720660619922013-03-15T08:30:21.589-07:002013-03-15T08:30:21.589-07:00Then please stop claiming that I use double standa...Then please stop claiming that I use double standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-12228999066687683392013-03-15T07:10:41.843-07:002013-03-15T07:10:41.843-07:00Walter, you misunderstand. If anyone, theist or a...Walter, you misunderstand. If anyone, theist or atheist, takes offense, then I'll step in and ask the other person to dial it back. I took offense by some of your comments, so I let you know. You took offense at one of Crude's comments, so I let him know. There's absolutely no double standard. When did I say it was okay for a Catholic to call something laughable? Nowhere.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-13342019511410749892013-03-14T23:30:58.530-07:002013-03-14T23:30:58.530-07:00"If Walter hadn't taken offense, I wouldn..."If Walter hadn't taken offense, I wouldn't have mentioned anything". I am truly very disappointed to hear you admit using double standards here. When Catholics say something is laughable, there is nothing wrong with that, but when an atheist puts some things between quotation marks (for reasons he explained) or makes a tongue-in-cheek remark like 'if he thought that, he may not have been so smart after all' then this is insulting etc. <br />I am truly sorry, but with this attitude, common ground between theists and atheist, which seems to be your great dream, is not for tomorrow. In order for that to happen, we need true tolerance, which does not entail one side telling the other what they should or should not do, based on their own one and only truths, but a dialogue, in which both parties respect each other and have a rational argument about their differences. <br />I really cannot understand how you fail to see the fundamental difference between the two approaches.<br />Anyway, no hard feelings, not even to Crude. I know that in the heat of the argument people tend to overreact sometimes, if only to get the other party to think about their point of view. <br />So, I bow out of this discussion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-9990127464488615682013-03-14T19:08:49.711-07:002013-03-14T19:08:49.711-07:00Crude, I very much value your comments here. The ...Crude, I very much value your comments here. The truth is, I don't require apologies on this blog. In fact, I don't even censor insults, with the exception of posts that are unreasonably profane. I only ask you to scale back in order for me to remain consistent in how I personally respond to how people feel they are being respected. If Walter hadn't taken offense, I wouldn't have mentioned anything. Make sense? I doubt I'm explaining myself very well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-4330902862562988562013-03-14T16:10:09.446-07:002013-03-14T16:10:09.446-07:00Anon,
Sorry Crude, but I won't be responding ...Anon,<br /><br /><i>Sorry Crude, but I won't be responding to you anymore. lI think the tone of your latest reply actually makes my case.</i><br /><br />You won't be replying because you have no reply. The Doug Thomas question has you boxed in - either way you answer it undercuts your argument, and your attempt to punt to the authority of an imaginary psychologist illustrated exactly the problematic position you're in. Your attempt to defend your views on everything from 'objective proof' to science to defining tolerance to otherwise hasn't gone well, and chances are, it won't improve.<br /><br />You want to ignore me? You're welcome to. But just because I'm ignored doesn't mean I'll stop talking.<br /><br />If I were a raging bigot or truly intolerant, you'd be egging me on right now. I'd be a fantastic example to use to advance your case. But instead, I'm arguing reasonably and I'm not being apologetic. Get ready to hear more and more of this in the future - deal with it now, or later.<br /><br /><i>Crude, I would like you to scale back on the "laughable" remarks.</i><br /><br />Doug, I respect you, and this is your blog - I'll follow your rules, or I'll bow out of the conversation, without complaint, regardless if I agree with them.<br /><br />I won't comment further on anon's arguments or their performance here so far. But I think, when we live in a world where people call those who have our views 'intolerant' at the drop of a hat (and in a world where 'intolerance' is viewed as something that should be corrected, even punished, by relevant authority figures), I question how polite we should be when so labeled. Anon owes you an apology. Me as well, but I don't care if I get one. I question whether we should always stay calm in the face of insults like these and other ones, or if there is an actual theological duty to get and sound angry.<br /><br />My two cents. I'll adhere to your standards, if I get out of line just let me know.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-49642670721262604852013-03-14T09:25:57.786-07:002013-03-14T09:25:57.786-07:00Walter, please re-read what I said. I'm not i...Walter, please re-read what I said. I'm not in favor of anyone calling your claims laughable. What I said is that your complaint is inconsistent with your willingness to call others' claims "not so smart," as you did with Thomas.<br /><br />I've nowhere committed a strawman. And, it's simply not true that I have to argue my opinion in order for it to be tolerant. I've explained this at least a dozen times now, but you choose to ignore it. I want homosexual acts to remain legal, therefore I'm tolerant. Q.E.D. Period. You've only asserted your definition of toleration, so let's take a look at what the dictionary says.<br /><br />From dictionary.com: toleration: an act or instance of tolerating, especially of what is not actually approved; forbearance.<br /><br />It says nothing about having to argue for one's position.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-67183999224442234502013-03-14T09:19:04.274-07:002013-03-14T09:19:04.274-07:00Let's be serious here, Doug. If you allow some...Let's be serious here, Doug. If you allow somebody to call my claims laughable, you should allow somebody else to put some things between quotation marks. If you don't, you are using double standards. That's it, so this last reply by you completely misses the mark.<br /><br />And please stop strawmanning me. While my definition of tolerance is somewhat broader than allwoing something because you can't stop it anyway, I have never claimed that expression an opinion for what it is is intolerant. You don't even have to prove something beyond any doubt before you can claim something, but you must at least argue for you opnion, so that other people have the chance to reply.<br />If, however, you claim that X is wrong and provide no reason for what you state as a fact, you are condemning people who do X. And even though you lack the power to prohibit X, you are nevertheless intolerant.<br />Nowhere have I claimed otherwise, so I have no idea where you get it that my definition of intolerance isn't supportable. If everyone adoptd this definition, the world would be a much better place. And isn't that what we all want? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-44309566422266825932013-03-14T07:43:36.291-07:002013-03-14T07:43:36.291-07:00The odd thing is, Crude called your claim (not you...The odd thing is, Crude called your claim (not you) laughable. On the criterion you provide - that your quotation marks only had to do with some of the things Thomas and Craig claim, and not with them personally, you're actually the one adopting a double-standard.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-82001704454862813582013-03-14T07:40:03.275-07:002013-03-14T07:40:03.275-07:00Here's the difference: I'm a Thomist. An ...Here's the difference: I'm a Thomist. An insult against Thomas's intelligence is an insult against my own. You're not a psychologist and, even if you were, it wouldn't be insulting to say you work in a field of soft science. There is no double-standard.<br /><br />Finally, you're using a definition of intolerance that simply isn't supportable. Crude and I have repeatedly shown that we tolerate homosexual acts, even though we oppose them on moral and health grounds. Also, I never said you called everyone on the opposition intolerant. You were using that example, so I went with it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-83670810661019410062013-03-13T23:20:26.648-07:002013-03-13T23:20:26.648-07:00I have never called everyone of the opposition int...I have never called everyone of the opposition intolerant. Calling all Catholics intolerant is simply false, as is calling all homosexual acts unhealthy. If those things are done deliberately, they are both signs of intolerance. <br /><br />And may I remind you that my quotation marks had nothing to do with you either, not with Aquinas or WL Craig, but with some of the things they assert. So, if calling psychology 'the softest of soft sciences' is not denigrating or insulting, then putting cosmology between quotation marks is even less insulting. Please don't use double standards here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com