(May 19, 2016 at 4:01 am)Stimbo Wrote: He didn't refer to the dude as "some dude". He said "the dude ". Don't pretend that the sleight of hand misquoting wasn't an attempt at marginalising Rocket's position.
I didn't quibble about the exact quotation because I think he was trying to emphasize that my use of "dude" implied this guy was just any old Nobody, when in fact he was Professor Doctor T. Expert, PhD.
It was true: my folks are both holders of Doctorates, and I have known enough Piled Higher and Deepers to know that many of them get so involved in their own pet ideas that they "go off the deep end" and start to fall outside the mainstream of thinking on any number of topics, including their own field. They will sometimes cling to outdated, disproved, and bypassed ideas, after spending so long defending them. That is why it is useless to quote any one expert, unless the person's general perspective on information is within the mainstream to the degree that it could stand in for the consensus. That is why it is an examination of methodology, considering all the literature as a whole, and seeking a consensus opinion that matters.
In the words of Carl Sagan:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.