Ooh! My old Early Modern lit prof just liked my essay criticising PoMo forms of feminism on Facebook. Will have to see if she's free for tea
Provided I'm not stopping them from believing & saying so & living according to their belief, I can disbelieve & say so & live accordingly.
-
-
So you draw the line at intentional interference? For example you do not bring up your aetheism unless it's relevant to a policy issue?
-
I can and have argued the issue with people who want to argue the issue. I think faith-based epistemologies are terrible ones...
-
Respect for reason & evidence matters for its own sake not simply because of the consequences of not respecting them.
-
But I also respect people's right not to respect them and not to want to discuss the matter.
-
In the same way, I think its fine for religious people to argue for faith whether or not theirs is being threatened.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not atheist but I def support church-state segregation. An evangelical political strain in politics refuses that & threatens democracy 2day.
-
Yes, this is the consequentialist element which is more important. The discussion on the merits of various ideas is a different element.
-
and those labeled liberal "elites"-- elites having taken the step to analysis of ideas "about" thinking and it's process to a step 2.
-
Sorry, you've lost me.
-
And that ability or desire to do so is where I see those who *should* be doing so legislatively get labeled as "liberal elites" 2.
-
If we get too abstract about principles over consequences?
-
They should be able and willing to do deep analysis of ideas to determine the most balanced even-handed policies. Not deterred instead. 2.
-
Absolutely!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.