My "Does God Exist?" debate with Dr. Ronda Chervin - now available on Youtube!

My recent recorded "Does God Exist?" debate (held on August 19, 2012 vs. Dr. Ronda Chervin) which was recorded for a special episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available on Youtube. A remastered high-quality downloadable and streamable audio-only file is scheduled to be released as a podcast on the first Wednesday of September. This was my second recorded debate of this kind.



Dr. Chervin presented variations of Aquinas' third and fifth ways in her opening statement.
I presented the evidential problem of natural evil, Stephen Law's 'Evil God Challenge,' and the problem of theological fatalism.

Thanks to all who supported, promoted, and watched the debate. Jason Gogola (behind the camera) and Karla Porter (the debate's moderator) helped with the organization and worked hard to make this happen. An extra special thanks goes out to my opponent, Dr. Chervin, for providing a good debate.

Comments, questions, and feedback -- always encouraged -- can be posted here. I will be participating in events like this in the future, so constructive criticism will help improve the quality of debates like this. Consider also sending e-mail and thanks to Dr. Chervin at ChervinRonda (at) gmail (dot) com. Feel free, also, to sound off on the event's Facebook page which still has ongoing discussion!

I will be dedicating some upcoming blog posts concerning this debate in which I will further develop the arguments I presented, restate and expand my objections to my opponent, and comment on some issues which were raised in the question and answer session. Stay tuned by following the blog label 'NEPAGodDebate' and keeping watch on my blog.

An interesting note which should be known...
At a point in the question and answer session, moderator Karla Porter was asking questions which were not delivered by persons in the live chat. For whatever reason, the chatroom crashed and -- while it was still open -- questions were not easy to read considering the blinding speed of the chat. In the future, we will ask that questions be sent via another medium instead. I appreciate, though, that so many people viewed! Crashing the chatroom is a good sign of interest :)

Information on participants:

Ronda Chervin received a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Fordham University and an MA in Religious Studies from Notre Dame Apostolic Institute. She is a widow, mother, and grandmother. Ronda converted to the Catholic Faith from a Jewish, though atheistic, background and has been a Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Loyola Marymount University, the Seminary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Franciscan University of Steubenville. She is an international speaker and author of some fifty books about Catholic thought, practice and spirituality. Ronda is currently a Dedicated Widow of the Holy Eucharist forming a small community of dedicated widows. Dr. Ronda is currently teaching philosophy at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. Her website can be found at www.rondachervin.com.

Justin Vacula received bachelor's degrees in Philosophy and Psychology, a minor in Professional Writing, and the distinguished W.A. Kilburn Memorial Award for Philosophy from King's College. Justin Vacula is an outspoken atheist, activist for the separation of church and state, a speaker, writer/reporter, blogger, and host of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast. He is currently enrolled in Marywood University's graduate-level Mental Health Counseling program. Vacula holds leadership roles as the co-organizer, spokesperson, and a board member of the NEPA Freethought Society. Justin has appeared on various radio shows, television networks, and podcasts. Vacula will be speaking at the upcoming September 28-30 Atheist/Humanist conference in Harrisburg. His website can be found at www.justinvacula.com.

Karla Porter works with organizations that want to achieve employer of choice status, are interested in attracting candidates who will develop into employee brand advocates that drive growth and continued success, embrace diversity, desire a culture of innovation and excellence, want to enrich the community, and reward superior performance with celebrity. Porter is one of four organizers behind the upcoming NEPA BlogCon 2012 conference at Luzerne County Community College taking place on September 29. Her website can be found at www.karlaporter.com.

Response to 'Surly Amy' and 'Lousy Canuck'

Blogger Jason Thibeault, writing for the blog 'Lousy Canuck,' has recently authored a post titled “The campaign against Amy Davis Roth” in which he authors a very passionate defense of 'Surly Amy' who has -- on his account -- been “under concerted attack.” His post is largely an emotional appeal which fails because he misrepresents many things and seems to consider everyone who merely disagrees with 'Surly Amy' to be a nasty bully. Within the post, he heaps abuse at me, distorts many things, and references the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) complaint I received which may have been from 'Surly Amy.' I go unnamed, but am obviously referred to as 'Entity.'

Here's my response - as long as it needs to be without going overboard:

Jason begins his post discussing how much he likes 'Surly Amy.' He notes that he had a good experience with her and recently his “already favorable impression of Amy was redoubled when [he] has found out that she'd nearly singlehandledly sent dozens of women to TAMover the years, organizing and running fundraisers and committing resources from her Surlys to that end.” So be it. I appreciate that she has launched fundraising efforts to send women to TAM and am happy that an associate of mine whom I also met in-person and have a favorable impression of was part of that group. 'Surly Amy' has done great things...that is not a matter I am contesting. ...but it's not all happy trails as Jason makes it out to be.

In Jason's post, I am unfairly lumped in with a group of people whom he describes as engaging in a “concerted attack” against 'Surly Amy.' Among these people and this “concerted attack,” he notes people upset about the Skepchick network and mentions D.J. Grothe - the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

It was because of what I saw as, contrary to what Jason might believe, the “concerted attack” against D.J. Grothe, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and The Amazing Meeting which had led me to speak up [back in the beginning of June] and, if you will, 'get involved in the drama' (although I would have really liked to – and would like to – exclusively focus on church/state activism, debates, speaking, etc...). Jason was a person who had usedthe word 'douchebag' in reference to D.J. Grothe. Additionally, many persons from the Skepchick network and Freethought Blogs (Jason included) had some really nasty things to say about the JREF, D.J., and The Amazing Meeting. [...but that's a story for another day. Gee, I wonder why people would be upset the Skepchick network and Freethought Blogs?]

Jason also mentions Dr. Harriet Hall, who had worn a t-shirt -- presumably in response to all of the “concerted attacks” from Skepchick (mainly from Rebecca Watson) and the Freethought Blogs network concerning The JREF, The Amazing Meeting, and the James Randi Educational Foundation – which had said Hall was “not a skepchick” and that she feels “safe and welcome at TAM” (oh, the horror!). Some persons also wore 'fake jewelry' (I'll get to that later) and sung a satirical song about how Skephicks, on Jason's account, have sticks up their asses. Jason also mentions more. 'Surly Amy,' after all of this, left the conference a day early after crying. Jason then mentions a letter from Paula Kirby with the language of 'feminazi' and 'femistasi,' forum trolling, Twitter trolling, and criticism from Thunderf00t.

While I might not have worn 'fake jewelry,' a t-shirt which Amy didn't like, or sung a song about Skepchicks having sticks up their asses, used the word 'feminazi,' it is no surprise that there was such a reaction. When particular bloggers on Skepchick and Freethought Blogs dedicate so much time, so much effort, and so many posts talking about how horrible D.J. Grothe, The Amazing Meeting, and the JREF is [and that's just the tip of the grievances...nevermind the attacks on Chris Stedman, Penn Jilette, Richard Dawkins, Staks Rosch and so many more...], a response in this manner seems plausible.

'Surly Amy' has befriended and associated herself with with people like myself (and I am not alone in this by any means) see nastiness, vitriol, and a complete waste of time that could have been handled much better. The message is quite clear. People don't like 'Surly Amy.' People don't like particular writers on Freethought Blogs. People don't like particular writers on the Skepchick network.


(Some commenters on Freethought Blogs aren't too charitable...)

Some of what 'Surly Amy' has faced may be considered outright bullying (and it's something I certainly didn't engage in), but nonetheless Jason lumps me into the group. Jason – and many others -- seem to unjustly lump all critics into one group as a bunch of nasty misogynist sexist privileged douchebag gender-traitor/dudebro thugs while failing to realize -- as many fundamentalist theists I have encountered – that many who disagreearen't disrespectful and honest civil criticism can be had.

So, what have I said about Amy? I authored two posts (before the DMCA complaint I received which I will get to later in this post) concerning 'Surly Amy' rebuking oneskeptical blogger Sharon Hill for following a parody account onTwitter saying, to Hill, “you should be embarrassed” (which curiously appeared on the 'fake jewelry' 'Surly Amy' spoke of. I had a lengthy Twitter discussion with 'Surly Amy' about how people have different tastes in humor and how it is inappropriate to place demands on people for a matter of subjective differences. 

Within my conversation and within the blog post that followed, I offered criticism free of name-calling, personal attacks, abuse, etc. - as this is something I aspire to steer clear of in my work for very good reasons. I even recently gave a speech about the importance of civility in discussion and hosted a podcast episode where this was discussed (to just name two things). You can look for yourself at the blog post about 'Surly Amy' and see that.

My second post -- "Surly Amy: Conference should ban 'fake jewelry'" concerned criticism of what 'Surly Amy' said on a podcast with host Amanda Marcotte. 'Surly Amy' said, and I quote,

“There was this group of, again, very vocal angry troll-like people that did some really awful things to me in real life - that sort of thing that you usually only see online I was actually face to face with. I had people wearing t-shirts saying that they were not a skepchick, people making fake jewelry that I make that said things on it like 'you should be embarrassed.' There's this really crazy undercurrent of othering that I had never experienced before and it was really upsetting and I ended up leaving the event a day early.” 

“We're not asking for anything crazy - just basic rules so that we can say the sort of thing like making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay nor is grabbing someone's ass. That's it, that's all we're asking for.”

I offered criticism of these ideas 'Surly Amy' had while arguing that it's unreasonable for conference organizers to ban 'fake jewelry' and t-shirts on the grounds of someone merely claiming offense. If 'Surly Amy's' ideas would come to fruition, censorship would be the result – and that's something the atheist/skeptic community should be against. I wrote that because 'Surly Amy' held this attitude, she should be disqualified from the ongoing conversation concerning anti-harassment polices at conferences. I wrote,

If 'Surly Amy' and others had their way -- according to what 'Surly Amy' said in this podcast and logical conclusions which seem to follow -- conferences would ban others' freedom of expression and speech on grounds of a person claiming offense. I hope this day never comes, but it might just be on its way if people continue to consider 'Surly Amy' as a valid participant in the discussion concerning anti-harassment policies at conferences. Her wanting to restrict which jewelry people wear at conferences, though, should hopefully disqualify her from this discussion. Is this the sort of feminism that is worth wanting? 'Surly Amy,' after all, is not some 'rogue voice' or 'extremist' who has little clout; she is a well-respected and listened to voice within in the feminist atheist community. 

Are you, reader, in agreement with 'Surly Amy?' 

Should jewelry which leads people to claim offense be banned from conferences?

Despite this very fair post which offered criticism of ideas in a very civil fashion – much unlike other examples Jason refers to such as outright making fun of 'Surly Amy' -- Jason has put me in a group of a concerted campaign against 'Surly Amy.'

Enter, then, the recent DMCA complaint which I received directed my blog post offering criticism of 'Surly Amy' comments concerning how conference organizers should ban 'fake jewelry.' Included in the post, with a caption noting the image was a Surly-Ramic, was an image of Surly Amy's “This is what a feminist looks like” jewelry. I used this because this provided a criticism of Surly Amy's ideas and was relevant to the post considering that 'Surly Amy' identifies as a feminist. As is usually the case, I provide images with my blog posts that are relevant to the post in question. I have never had any legal problems because of this. All sorts of people do this under fair use.

Once, though, I used a picture of me from a local newspaper and was asked, by e-mail, by the photographer, to caption the picture indicating its source. I did that with no problem and there were no further issues. Everyone was happy. This, though, was not the case with 'Surly Amy' or whomever filed this DMCA complaint; I received no request to take down the picture, but instead, before anything else, received an e-mail containing a legal complaint which forced the image offline. Apparently, though, 'Surly Amy' asked blogger thunderf00t to remove an image she had the copyright of and he complied.

Returning to Jason's post, Jason refers to me as a troll (this is no new news because he, along with his blogger compatriot PZ Myers, called me a “vacuous shitbag troll”) and writes, referring to 'Surly Amy,' “Then the trolls get the bright idea to wreck her art at the same time as going after her personally.” 

This is quite an odd assertion considering that my post did nothing more than criticize the ideas, in quite a fair and civil manner, 'Surly Amy' presented. The post had nothing to do with her business or, as Jason says, “wrecking her art.” I did not say something like, “People should boycott Surly-Ramics because she is a no-good x, y, and z who is a very bad artist.” Nothing of the sort was said. I offered criticism of ideas just like Jason (and many others did) in reference to D.J. Grothe.

Jason, continuing, writes, without using my name and heaping abuse at me,

Then a certain disingenuous and argumentationally-vacuous entity in our community, who claims both to be a leader and to represent the moral high ground of attacking people’s arguments instead of their person, posts a copyrighted image of Amy’s in order to try to cut her down. This entity — henceforth known as Entity (who will go unlinked, so I’m not accused of trying to ruin their reputation in a bullying fashion by pointing out their trollish actions!) — wrote the post to say that Amy is divisive and damaging to the community because she wants conferences to ban the parody jewellery, rather than what she actually suggested, that harassment policies would provide frameworks for complaining about being targeted for harassment like she had been. The entire post was a straw dummy, as is Entity’s modus operandi, but the post stood unopposed, unmentioned and unloved, until Blogger’s automatic DMCA takedown process reverted the post to draft status until the blogger in question could remove the offending image.

It's quite odd that Jason says that I claim to be a leader since I actually am a leader of a local secular community group and have – and continue to have – high regard within secular organizations,groups, etc. perhaps as a direct result of my church/state activism (which was curiously enough lauded by many on the Freethought Blogs network including most notably PZ Myers and 'Blag Hag' concerning the rejected "Atheists." bus ads), writing, speaking, podcasting, etc. I even was recently invited tospeak at the Secular Student Alliance's 2012 Leadership Conference and received a thank-you card following that. Nevermind any of that, though, continue on with the personal attacks...


(Freethought Blogs blogger Greta Christina mentions rejected "Atheists." bus ad 
around the 4:44 mark in this Reason Rally clip.)

Jason considers my post to be a 'strawdummy' as is allegedly my modus operandi (that's news to me - I would like to see other examples of me doing this!) Jason says that 'Surly Amy' really said “that harassment policies should provide frameworks for complaining about harassment like she had been.”  It is, though, quite clear that 'Surly Amy' said she and others are “not asking for anything crazy – just basic rules so that we can say the sort of thing like making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay not is grabbing someone's ass. That's it, that's all we're asking for.” 

I don't see how much clearer it can get than that.

Here's the thing – filing a DMCA request against someone, especially without asking said person to remove the image in question which is supposedly the problem – is bullying behavior which should be, regardless of the claimant or the person being DMCA'd, outright condemned by the atheist/skeptic community. It seems to be nothing more than censorship and an admission that one simply can't handle the criticism (odd, being that the recipient is a public figure who, by being on the internet and making convtroversial statements, should expect criticism and be able to handle it). Unlike many others Jason mentioned as part of an alleged “concerted attack,” I was extremely charitable and authored a post free from personal attacks. It is such a shame that nowhere in Jason's post did he condemn this DMCA bullying.

Jason continues,

So people now have a rhetorical club to beat Amy with. Despite there being no evidence that Amy herself posted the DMCA takedown notice, it’s very probably her because she’s the copyright owner. But the action recommended in the takedown notice was to remove the offending content and the rest could be republished. Did Entity do that? Of course not. Instead, Entity filed a DMCA counter-claim...

This alleged “rhetorical club to beat Amy with” was something handed down by 'Surly Amy' and given to me and others if it really is the case that she filed the DMCA. (...and what a weapon it is!) The DMCA is unacceptable and should be something that leads people, if it is indeed 'Surly Amy' who filed the DMCA, to arrive at a conclusion with which they lose respect for 'Surly Amy' even if she makes nice jewelry and sends people to conventions as per fundraisers. After all, many were willing to do this (and perhaps have) because of Richard Dawkins' “dear Muslima” comments. (although Rebecca Watson totally didn't call for a boycott!) /sarcasm

'Surly Amy,' though, has suspiciously – as far as I know – remained quiet on this DMCA issue. She's blocked people on Twitter who have asked her about it. She's told me to leave her alone and has totally distanced herself from this. She hasn't confirmed or denied whether she filed the DMCA. One would think that if she didn't file the DMCA, she would want to absolve herself from guilt. At least that is what I would think rational people would do...but perhaps that is 'my privilege speaking.'

Jason claims I did not take down the image for whatever reason (I took the image down almost within seconds of seeing the takedown notice) and, from the looks of his post, that I filed a DMCA counter-claim to keep the image up. This accounting is false.

I pondered whether or not I would file the counter-claim (after taking down the image) and decided to do so after some advice from friends with what might be my foolhardy sense of courage, pride, integrity, and honor. I absolutely refuse to be bullied by people using legal measures to shut me down and will not tolerate it. I didn't tolerate it back in 2011 when I received threats from a chiropractor's fiancee' and will not now. I don't intend to take 'Surly Amy' to court (what a waste of money and time that would be which should not be something the atheist/skeptic community engages in!) like Jason seems to allude to.

I have, following this DMCA claim, adopted a 'fake jewelry' avatar created by Reap Paden on my posts (reading “Don't censor me Amy") and on my online profiles to show that I will not stand for this sort of bullying. Filing a DMCA which leads to takedown of criticism is repugnant behavior. Again, I received no e-mail from 'Surly Amy' asking me to take the image down or better attribute it (although it seems like it was fair use, which I argued in my DMCA counter-claim).

While there are some people indeed bullying 'Surly Amy,' I am not one of them. It seems though, as an odd turn of events, that 'Surly Amy' [if she indeed filed the DMCA] is the real bully here. Against possibly everything 'the movement' which prides itself on free speech and honest criticism stands for (note: not 'Surly Amy's ideas of feminism which, according to Amanda Marcotte, are “consistent” with atheism along withpro-choice positions), 'Surly Amy' – instead of sending me an e-mail asking for the image to be removed [if it is the case that she filed the DMCA].

For that, and just for that (regardless of Jason's long emotional appeal post), the atheist/skeptic community should distance themselves from 'Surly Amy.' This is no bullying, “concerted attack,” or 'an attack on her art.' This is an appropriate response. ...and this is the same response many should have and have had concerning DMCA complaints targeting people criticial of creationist claims.

People are sick of all the nonsense stemming from the Skepchick and Freethought Blogs networks (although, admittedly, there are still some good people there). ...and it's not only me. It's also Paula Kirby, Sam Harris, Russell Blackford, D.J. Grothe, Jeremy Stangroom, Richard Dawkins, Mallorie Nasrallah, John Loftus, Thunderfoot, and so so so many more (including all of those who are silent!). Of the 'so so so many more,' people have contacted me in confidence showing their support and rebuking Freethought Blogs bloggers and Skepchick writers but are afraid to go public because of the consequences which may follow.


(Ridicule from PZ Myers directed at me)

While the previously mentioned names don't necessarily agree with me on everything (or have the same feelings about everything concerning Freethought Blogs and Skepchick), it is likely that they are sick of the constant needless drama and in-fighting which could be avoided and/or handled in a more civil manner. We aren't sexist misogynist dudebros/gender-traitors for this. Hell, we can even be labeled as feminists although we have a different take on feminism when compared to 'Surly Amy' and company.


(More hate from PZ Myers directed at me)

Jason ended his post with an appeal for people who are “sick of the nonsense” to “support someone who's supported out community even while the cockroaches targeted her.” In the same light, feel free, if you are “sick of the nonsense” to support me. Perhaps this is less shameless than Jason's asking people to donate money to 'Surly Amy?' You be the judge of that...

After all, I would wager that I do much more (or at least a considerable comparable amount) for the community than certain bloggers...and don't work to divide this movement by levying constant personal attacks at people, heaping abuse at those whom I disagree, or filing legal complaints to take down posts I might happen to not like. I write for almost no money, incur expenses when travelling to events which I have been invited to speak at, and volunteer my services to my local freethought group while producing the podcast for no money. A donation would be much appreciated.

You can also purchase from the NEPA Freethought Society store.

Thank you.

- Justin “vacuous shitbag troll" "Fucking” Vacula



Update: Three more DMCAs have been filed against people using Surly-Ramics images in their posts. Is this really about images or is it something else? I'm inclined to believe the latter. More bullying. Look, even if you don't like the criticism -- whether it be fair or not -- resorting to DMCA tactics is unacceptable. Youtuber and blogger 'GirlWritesWhat' has also received DMCAs.

Surly Amy: Conferences should ban 'fake jewelry'

Image provided by Reap Paden

[The original "This is what a feminist looks like" Surly-Ramics image has been removed from this post due to a DMCA complaint. I have replaced that image with the one you now see above. This post is also available on Youtube and Scribd.]

--

Skepchick writer and Surly-Ramics creator 'Surly Amy' has recently argued that conferences should ban 'fake jewelry' after recounting her recent TAM experience in which she spoke of a group of "very vocal angry troll-like people that did some really awful things" to her. I argue that placing restrictions on freedom of expression and speech would be unreasonable and disastrous. The mere suggestion of banning 'fake jewelry,' I argue, should disqualify 'Surly Amy' from being a participant in discussion concerning anti-harassment policies.

'Surly Amy' -- blogger for the Skepchick network and creator of 'Surly-ramics' jewelry -- has recently appeared on the August 5, 2012 episode of Amanda Marcotte's "RH Reality Check" podcast to discuss feminism within the atheist movement. Of particular interest in this short podcast were Amy's comments on her experience at The Amazing Meeting and thoughts on anti-harassment policies at atheist/skeptic conferences. During the discussion, Amy had said that she -- and presumably other feminists in the atheist community because she uses the word 'we' -- wants conferences to have rules restricting particular types of jewelry people wear. For instance, Amy says atheist/skeptic conferences should have policies which restrict "fake jewelry" which is "intentionally offending."

Near the 11:53 mark of the before-mentioned podcast, commenting on her experience at The Amazing Meeting, 'Surly Amy' said,

There was this group of, again, very vocal angry troll-like people that did some really awful things to me in real life - that sort of thing that you usually only see online I was actually face to face with. I had people wearing t-shirts saying that they were not a skepchick, people making fake jewelry that I make that said things on it like 'you should be embarrassed.' There's this really crazy undercurrent of othering that I had never experienced before and it was really upsetting and I ended up leaving the event a day early.

It seems that 'Surly Amy' considers people wearing t-shirts she doesn't like and jewelry saying 'you should be embarrassed' to be indicative of "very vocal angry troll-like people" and people acting "really awful" (she doesn't take time to mention anything else which warranted these labels and conclusions). This also apparently constitutes a "really crazy undercurrent of othering" which, at least in part, caused her to leave the conference a day early.

Further commenting, near the 14:22 mark in the podcast, Amy mentions what she would like to see anti-harassment policies at conferences to address. She explains,

We're not asking for anything crazy - just basic rules so that we can say the sort of thing like making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay nor is grabbing someone's ass. That's it, that's all we're asking for.

What, anyway, is 'fake jewelry?' Since when did 'Surly Amy' have an exclusive hold on the market of ceramic jewelry? 'Fake jewelry,' it seems, is ceramic jewelry either meant to satirize Surly Amy's jewelry or ceramic jewelry which is not made by 'Surly Amy.' One example of this 'fake jewelry,' according to a JREF forum poster is as follows: "The fake Surlys I saw looked like a man and woman standing on either side of an elevator with a big red slash through the whole picture." Anyway, returning to the issues...

It is reasonable for one to not only claim offense to 'fake jewelry,' but also to ask conferences to have policies which restrict what jewelry people wear...because someone like 'Surly Amy' happens to claim offense?

'Surly Amy' -- and apparently others in the atheist/skeptic community -- seemed to, for whatever reasons, have moved away from the common response of "Too bad, that's your problem" when someone claims offense. This is, at least from my experience, the reaction that many atheists have when religious people claim offense. For whatever reason, 'Surly Amy' and others seemed to have compartmentalized this attitude (assuming that she and others would respond to religious believers who happen to claim offense to atheists/skeptics arguing against religious claims or otherwise being blasphemous) and afforded some sort of special rules for their own particular sensitivities. Note that 'Surly Amy' does not only condemn that which she finds offensive, but she also wants to squelch others' freedom of speech at conferences by encouraging conferences to adopt policies restricting messages displayed on jewelry.

Banning others' speech because one happens to claim offense or dislike speech seems to be 'the coward's way out' that is often condemned by the atheist/skeptic community. What ever happened to "I might not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it?" What ever happened to toleration and an understanding that other people should be afforded with the rights to express viewpoints which some might not  like? What sort of 'freethought response' is banning speech and insisting that conferences adopt policies which restrict messages on jewelry?

What sort of consequences might follow if "I'm offended" is good reason for conferences to adopt policies restricting jewelry people wear? Should 'Teach the Controversy' t-shirts which mock creationists be barred from conferences should a creationist happen to attend a skeptic conference and complain? Should critical examination of Islam and pictures of Mohammad be barred from atheist conferences should a liberal Muslim happen to attend and complain? Should Tim Minchin's "The Pope Song" be barred because people happen to take offense to vulgar language?

Skeptical readers may think that all of these consequences would not follow because these cases are 'different' or otherwise aren't attacking persons. This reasoning, though, would ignore the fact that offense is a largely (or perhaps totally) subjective term. After all, many are lauding Matt Dillahunty's recent "speaking out against hate directed at women" post which says,

When you hear a complaint that someone has raised, you might think that they're expressing an irrational, emotional, over-reaction to the situation. You might even be correct - but it doesn't matter, and here's why: You don't get to decide what someone else finds offensive. You don't get to decide what someone else finds uncomfortable, unwelcoming, disconcerting, stressful, harassing, troubling or painful. You aren't the world: everyone isn't exactly like you. We're trying to build a safe and welcoming community. We're trying to sponsor safe and welcoming events. [...] We need to make sure that people who express their concerns are treated with respect and compassion and that we make reasonable efforts to either alleviate their concerns or clarify why we can't or won't. 

Apparently, persons are -- according to Dillahunty's accounting -- out of line to argue that people are acting irrationally when they happen to "express a concern that something is making them feel unwelcome." Dillahunty, though, at least says that concerns can't or won't be addressed. The idea that people may not rightly challenge others who are behaving irrationally is poisonous and ought to be challenged by skeptics. The mere claiming of offense or taking an attitude of 'I believe it, so it is so' is no justification for one to place restrictions on others' behaviors.

If 'Surly Amy' and others had their way -- according to what 'Surly Amy' said in this podcast and logical conclusions which seem to follow -- conferences would ban others' freedom of expression and speech on grounds of a person claiming offense. I hope this day never comes, but it might just be on its way if people continue to consider 'Surly Amy' as a valid participant in the discussion concerning anti-harassment policies at conferences. Her wanting to restrict which jewelry people wear at conferences, though, should hopefully disqualify her from this discussion. Is this the sort of feminism that is worth wanting? 'Surly Amy,' after all, is not some 'rogue voice' or 'extremist' who has little clout; she is a well-respected and listened to voice within in the feminist atheist community.

Are you, reader, in agreement with 'Surly Amy?'
Should jewelry which leads people to claim offense be banned from conferences?

Related posts:
Disagree? "Fuck off and die" says FTB/Skepchick commenter 'Spokesgay'
In which I am ridiculed by PZ Myers
"Women and the Secular Community" discussion available
'Surly Amy,' Skepticism, and Satire
Stephanie Zvan doesn't understand cyberstalking
My Twitter conversation with Rebecca Watson...and much more

PZ Myers: 'Abortion reduces to simple question.' Really?

PZ Myers

In a recent blog post, biologist PZ Myers argued that philosophical and scientific arguments concerning abortion are irrelevant because the matter of abortion reduces to "a simple question." I argue, as someone who identifies as pro-choice with a background in philosophy, that the matter of abortion isn't as simple as PZ makes it out to be.

Throughout my undergraduate studies in philosophy it became quite evident to me that arguments concerning many philosophical issues can be -- and are -- raised. What might appear to us to be simple or evident doesn't appear to be so following closer examination. Concerning philosophy of religion, for example, a vast array of articles inside of and outside of jornals exist on the topics of miracles, the problem of evil, faith, and theological fatalism. Competing ethical frameworks in the domain of ethics such as utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology exist which merely, in many cases, start discussions while specific issues such as suicide, euthanasia, and the death penalty are often later discussed in the light of various ethical frameworks. To note that a long-debated philosophical issue is 'simple' or otherwise reduces to one question -- especially in the case of ethical matters -- seems to be quite a foolish blunder.

An example of such a blunder can be found at biologist PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula on the Freethought Blogs network. In a less than one hundred word blog post titled "The only abortion argument that counts" [the title itself should raise an immediate red flag] including a short video, PZ Myers asserts that philosophical and scientific arguments for abortion simply do not matter because the issue of abortion reduces to "a simple question." Apparently, on Myers' account, all of the debates and journal articles that have been written throughout human history on the matter of abortion are irrelevant. Myers writes:

We can make all the philosophical and scientific arguments that anyone might want, but ultimately what it all reduces to is a simple question: do women have autonomous control of their bodies or not? Even if I thought embryos were conscious, aware beings writing poetry in the womb (I don’t, and they’re not), I’d have to bow out of any say in the decision the woman bearing responsibility has to make.

Why is it the case that the issue of abortion can be reduced to "a simple question?" Myers provides no justification for this claim, but rather merely asserts that it is the case - obviously ignoring quite a vast array of the philosophical and scientific arguments (although he mentions they exist in his post). Claiming that abortion reduces to "a simple question" -- on the grounds of whether one thinks that women should have autonomous control of their bodies -- is itself, it seems, a philosophical claim which, if it were not a mere assertion, would be backed by certain philosophical and scientific arguments (and likely may be in various philosophical journal articles on the matter of abortion).

What, anyway, of the claim of abortion reduces to "a simple question" as Myers states? This seems to be news to me as a wide array of objections and concerns contrary to a pro-choice position exist. Within the realm of people who identify as pro-choice, there are even disagreements as to when abortions would be moral - this alone shows that abortion is not a matter that reduces to "a simple question." It can be the case, for example, that people believe women have autonomous control of their bodies but would be acting in an immoral fashion, for example, if they neglected to receive an abortion because of sheer laziness and only wanted to get an abortion in the fifth month of pregnancy.

--

On my blog, I frequently respond to arguments for gods and arguments rebutting positions atheists hold. Personally, I find the problem of natural evil to provide a pretty solid defeater (a reason to undermine) to Christian belief. Is, though, this problem of natural evil a simple matter or does it reduce belief in the Christian god to "a simple question?" I don't think so. Many arguments exist -- which I don't find persuasive at all -- to attempt to answer the problem of natural evil ranging from 'this is a fallen world and the free will actions of humans are to blame for natural disasters' to 'we're simply not in a position to judge whether God has reasons for permitting natural evils,' but this doesn't make the matter simple or otherwise reduce Christian belief to a simple question. It takes some time to answer these objections and these objections seem to be persuasive to a vast array of people.

What is 'simple,' anyway, in the matters of ethical issues? A matter such as 'killing babies for the fun of it' seems to be quite a simple matter, for starters, because it appears to go against all of our moral intuitions (or at least those of most mentally healthy adults). Killing babies for the fun of it deprives human beings of life, inflicts unnecessary suffering, would likely lead to grieving, etc. It should also be quite uncontroversial to say that killing babies for the fun of it is always wrong in every situation. Arguments stating that it would be moral to kill babies for the fun of it would likely, and should likely, not be taken seriously.

Does it appear, then, in the light of the matter of killing babies for the fun of it (or similar issues which would be considered simple), that abortion is as simple of an issue or otherwise can be reduced to a simple question? I think not. In the case of abortion, it seems not to be the case -- even to the most ardent pro-choice persons -- that abortion is moral in all circumstances. It seems not to be the case that the moral intuitions of mentally healthy adults point to an obvious conclusion. Arguments against the morality of abortion -- although they might not be good ones -- can and are taken quite seriously by philosophers and non-philosophers alike. What, then, for curious readers, can some of the serious arguments be that would not reduce the matter of abortion to a single question?

A popular argument against abortion is known as the 'future like ours' (FLO) argument. FLO proponents argument that autonomous humans, similar to potential humans, both have a 'right to a future' that should be preserved. Another argument against abortion appeals to an agnosticism of sorts and an implementation of the precaution; persons argue that since we can't be confident of whether abortion or depriving a potential human being of a future is moral, it is best to not abort. Arguments invoking some sort of responsibility on behalf of a woman -- in which she should be morally obligated to give birth -- also exist.

Personally, I don't find any of the above counter-arguments or concerns surrounding abortion to be persuasive (although I would like for abortions to, if they must, happen quite early). I identify, then, as pro-choice. I don't, though, see the matter of abortion to be a simple issue that be reduced to "a simple question" as Myers proposes. Beware of those who assert that long-debated matters concerning complex ethical issues -- in blog posts with less than one hundred words -- can be resolved by a simple question.

William Lane Craig and The Problem of Evil

Prince Prospero from the horror film "The Masque of the Red Death" hints at the problem of evil.

Christian apologist and popular debater William Lane Craig doesn't think that the problem of evil -- a classic philosophical argument which seeks to undermine belief in the Christian god in light of natural disasters and suffering in the world -- is a problem. Craig has recently given a lecture concerning the problem of suffering and evil at Aalborg University in Denmark. I've watched it and have noticed that his responses to the problem of evil really haven't seemed to change since his debate with philosopher Kai Nielsen in February of 1991. This post will respond to a portion of Craig's opening statement from his 1991 debate and attempt to show why his response to the problem of evil is insufficient.

The problem of evil -- at a very basic understanding -- is well-informed by the above picture. The atheist who points to suffering in the world -- particularly natural disasters and diseases which kill people outright and lead to tremendous suffering -- sees evidence to assume that an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god (omni-god) does not exist. If an omni-god existed, some reason, it would not have created the universe in such a manner that guarantees natural disasters and diseases kill people and lead to a great deal of suffering. It is not only the case that God permits the disasters, but it is also the case -- as should be noted -- that God, if he exists, designed the universe which contains the disasters. 


It also isn't just some suffering that exists, but also an egregious amount of unnecessary suffering. Throughout this post, I'll use the term 'natural disasters' to abbreviate - but it is important to note that much suffering exists because of other factors such as degenerative diseases, mental illness, birth defects, random mutations of genes, and so on. None of what could be considered natural suffering, at least in this case, is the result of human action (and the atheist isn't arguing for God, for example, to intervene in the case of my stubbing a toe or even my driving a car into a tree following a drunken binge). 

An argument, then, along the lines of the problem of evil can be formed as follows:

(1) Egregious natural suffering, guaranteed by the natural laws of the universe, exists.
(2) An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god is incompatible with (1).
(3) An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god does not exist.

Premise one is quite obvious and needs no defense - Christians, even, do not deny premise one, but rather would object to premise two. The atheist can say that God could simply create a universe (and would do so) that is very much unlike ours - one in which an egregious amount of natural suffering does not exist. Why, one wonders, would a god that is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing create this universe? Absent of reasons -- and with the seeming contradiction -- it seems to be the case that an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god does not exist. I could further elaborate on justification for premise two, but that shouldn't be needed here.

William Lane Craig, though, as you might expect, objects to premise two. He says, in his 1991 debate,

...we can actually prove that God and evil are logically compatible. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent.

What, then, one wonders, could be these morally sufficient reasons that God might have which would show that God and evil are logically consistent? Craig doesn't offer any of these reasons, but rather says,

We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we're limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God's wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God's providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We're just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

Note that above, Craig seems to focus on evils which "human freely perpetrate." This, though, is not the thrust (or even the argument) of the problem of evil as far as natural suffering is concerned. What we are dealing with here, or otherwise what seems to be contained in the most forceful argument, is natural suffering.

I have always found Craig's response -- paraphrased to 'we're not in a good position to judge whether God has a sufficient reason for evils that occur' -- to be quite interesting as it seems to be, despite what Craig says (in his above linked lecture), an 'appeal to mystery.' 'For all we know,' Craig seems to assert, 'God might just have a reason.' Absent of finding any sort of reason, seeing the evidence of an egregious amount of natural suffering in this world (and knowing that if the Christian god existed, he could create a world much different than ours), we have all reasons not to believe in the Christian god, it seems.

We understand that, as humans, our knowledge is quite limited. This, though, when dealing with objections to certain beliefs -- in the face of defeaters (reasons to undermine belief) to the beliefs -- shouldn't lead us to simply throw our hands in the air saying something to the effect of, "Well, for all we know..." Knowledge, as it overwhelmingly seems, is based on what we currently know based on observations and reasoning. We hold beliefs, or should hold beliefs, not on what might be, but rather based on what is and what we do know. Absent of reasons that the Christian god might have for designing and permitting an egregious amount of natural suffering, we should be led to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist - 'natural evil' seems to serve as a defeater to Christian belief.

Craig's position -- and the position of every Christian who maintains that God may, 'for all we know,' have a good reason to design and permit natural suffering -- seems to lead one to the position of, which seems quite interesting in the face of Christians asserting that God is a benevolent being, 'moral agnosticism' or even moral nihilism. If, for all we know, God might have a reason to design and permit natural suffering, natural suffering, after all, might be a wonderful thing. On a Christian accounting, God is an all-loving being...so if God designed an earthquake which had killed hundreds of people, this must be a good thing.

Almost all adults (and children) in the world -- perhaps barring psychopaths -- agree that natural disasters are a terrible, horrible thing. The world would be so much of a better place, it so uncontroversially seems, without natural disasters. This intuition is quite strong and is reflected when persons grieve, donate money to relief efforts, and even try to deter natural disasters. To look at, for example, a tsunami that kills thousands and say, "Well, for all we know this could be a good thing. It might just have been the case that all of those people, for whatever reason, would have been responsible for great moral evils. God might have indeed permitted this, that makes sense" seems to be quite unreasonable - especially when considering the Christian god could achieve whatever 'ends' he desires by different means not including designing the universe with natural disasters.

Is the real concern, though, whether we are in the position to judge that God has no good reasons for permitting and designing natural suffering or, rather, is it the concern that the mere existence of egregious natural suffering poses as a defeater to Christian belief? I think it is the latter and that this whole 'are we in a position' talk is a distraction from the real issue at hand. Either way, it seems to be the case, with the omni-terms that Christians affix to the god they believe in, that we are in a position to judge that God has no reasons for permitting and designing natural suffering - especially in the case of him being able to design a different universe.

As Prince Prospero said in "The Masque of the Red Death," if a god of live ever did exist, he is long since dead (although someone, some thing doesn't seem to rule in its place).

Full audio and some text from my HACS talk

On July 17 of 2012, I appeared as a special guest for a philosophy class titled "Atheism and the New Atheism" for students at Holy Apostles College and Seminary - an evangelical Catholic university in Connecticut. More details are here. I delivered an opening speech and participated in a question and answer session which followed. The entire event lasted one hour and thirteen minutes.

As promised, the full audio of the event was released and has been made available to the public thanks to Dr. Mahfood. Stream the audio here or download the ZIP file here. The audio is unfortunately spotty at points. I may release a re-mastered version of the audio at a later date.

A text version of my speech can be read here:
Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech

Timestamps:
     (0:00 - 0:25)          Introduction by Dr. Mahfood
     (0:25 - 0:47)          Opening prayer by Dr. Chervin
     (0:48 - 1:50)          Introduction of Justin Vacula by Dr. Mahfood
     (1:50 - 17:50)        Opening speech from Justin Vacula
     (17:51 - end)          Question and answer session

Some of the questions and sentiments (paraphrased) in the question and answer session:
(18:13) Do you use science to determine what is true and false?
(20:33) What good reasons would be sufficient [for you to believe in God]?
(23:30) Do you only believe in something when all the contrary arguments have been resolved?
(27:06) Is there an objective standard for belief or do you have a personal standard?
(29:08) Do you believe something can be universally true?
(30:16) Are you dogmatically opposed, given your commitment to naturalism, to supernatural explanations?
(37:20) Would a supernatural experience lead you to belief in God?
(39:00) Are you looking for hard evidence to believe in God?
(40:52) What about faith?
(42:05) Discussion about the problem of natural evil and omni-attributes
(46:55) Theodicy: This is a fallen world/God's goodness was evident, but is no longer
(49:20) Theodicy: There is a good that supersedes an evil world. Perhaps suffering leads to good beyond   this earth? Perhaps suffering is just a prelude to the afterlife?  
(52:00) Theodicy: Evil serves a purpose. We see examples in this world in which suffering is required to achieve certain ends.
(54:00) Omni-attributes seem to be a different matter from God existing.
(55:48) Are you an agnostic?
(59:40) Theodicy: Eternal happiness, in light of limited suffering in this world, seems not to be a problem.
(1:01:43) What about metaphysical arguments for God's existence?
(1:04:00) Your philosophical studies seem to start with the Enlightenment. What about before that?
(1:10:45) How do you know that your reason without faith fulfills you?

Open thread - HACS talk

The online slide pertaining to my guest speaking
appearance for the "Atheism and the New Atheism"
class at Holy Apostles College and Seminary

This is an open thread pertaining to my recent talk given to students at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Students are welcome to comment here with follow-up questions or whatever else they would like. The transcript of my speech in addition to more information from the event is here.

Surly Amy, Skepticism, and Satire

Above is the profile picture for the Twitter account -- marked as a 'parody
on the internet'-- Angry Skepchick Woman (@AngrySkepchick)

In this post, I will recount a Twitter conversation I had with "Surly" Amy Davis Roth following her rebuke of Sharon Hill for following and re-tweeting a parody account on Twitter. Surly Amy and I engaged in a discussion concerning taking offense, satire, and much more. The discussion ended -- after I was told that I don't care about her feelings following my telling her I find what she finds hateful to be funny -- with me being blocked and branded as a troll. After recounting the discussion, I talk about parody, differing tastes, and how to handle disagreement arguing that one should tolerate differences and not create moral impositions on others because absurd consequences would follow if a mere claiming of offense were grounds for a person to cease certain behaviors.

Yesterday, on Twitter, "Surly" Amy [Davis Roth] of Skepchick.org -- @surlyamy -- rebuked Sharon Hill of DoubtfulNews.com -- @idoubtit -- for following, at the very least, one account on Twitter, @AngrySkepchick, with the profile description of

"Easily pissed off by the internets. You're a misogynist and bully for disagreeing with me. About anything. Parodies on the internet are no laughing matter!Teh Internets · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody"

Here are some of the intial Tweets by Surly Amy - some sent to Sharon Hill and some not:





Following these Tweets, Sharon Hill responded:



I was curious. Why would someone be rebuking another person for the accounts she follows on Twitter? Why would someone unfollow someone just because she follows an account on Twitter? Why should a parody/satire account constitute bullying or hate? Why is Surly Amy telling Sharon Hill that she should "be embarrassed" for following a Twitter account...and then bringing the fact that Sharon Hill's upcoming appearance at The Amazing Meeting?

[To note: Sharon Hill does not necessarily agree with anything in this post. In fact, I believe she spoke with Surly Amy -- outside of Twitter -- following the disagreement. I simply include her Tweets here to make sense of how the discussion started.]

...so I stepped in:



One of the first responses from Surly Amy was as follows:



Surly Amy, knowing nothing of my history, assumes 'I don't know what it is like.' Therefore, then, as it seems, I can't have an informed position on this issue for some reason because -- as it seems -- I have not "dealt w/ trolls daily and everywhere." I responded to the Tweet saying, "Actually, I've received much worse" providing a link to a recent blog post in which I detailed the consequences and repercussions I have dealt with because I am an out atheist and an atheist activist including threats from county employees, threats from fellow college students, being called 'the third most hated person in Luzerne County,' hate mail from family members, living in a location with [heightened] security, and much more.

Suprisingly, Surly Amy responded saying, "if you think that is worse we are done here."



Apparently the nonsense I have dealt with pales in comparison to what Surly Amy deals with? Regardless of whether that is the case, it is quite interesting that Surly Amy -- soon after responding to my rebuttal of 'not knowing what it is like' -- completely dismisses my 'knowing what it is like' and this is grounds, for some reason, for ending the conversation. I suppose my experiences simply don't matter...even though having the experience -- 'knowing what it is like' -- seemed to be a prerequisite for having an informed opinion or participating in a discussion.

Surly Amy then said, "This isn't a competition."



Who is talking about a competition? I merely responded following her 'you don't know what it is like' assertion with evidence showing that I do 'know what it is like.'

Following this, and responding to Surly Amy's assertion about @AngrySkepchick is 'mocking in any angry way:



I responded saying I don't see @AngrySkepchick as mocking in any angry way, but rather see it as light-hearted, obvious satire/parody. The account is clearly marked as such, too, as I noted. Surly Amy then responded saying "Well, you can pick your online friends and I will pick mine. To each their own." This seemed odd considering that Surly Amy was rebuking Sharon Hill and making character evaluations about her for following the parody account. Apparently, those 'to each their own' standards don't seem to be the case?

Next, I told Surly Amy that nastiness will happen given a large audience for public figures, bloggers, podcasters, etc. and that most of it is harmless, from trolls.



Following that Surly Amy responded,



I'm honestly perplexed by public figures who seem to equate people saying nasty things about them online with harassment - or otherwise being surprised by it. In this case, what Surly Amy sees to be nastiness is clearly marked as a satire/parody account and should, for perhaps for lack of a better term, be considered a trolling account. Is there really legitimate harm involved here? Is this something really uncalled for...or even uncalled for at all? Comments like these, accounts like these, and comments indistinguishable from Youtube comments by random trolls on the internet are quite likely - it is 'part of the game' of being a public figure - people are going to disagree with you and make snide comments in doing so.

To further expand on my thoughts here, I wrote the following in a recent post titled "Stephanie Zvan doesn't understand cyberstalking" in which blogger Stephanie Zvan posed what I understand as an untenable definition of cyberstalking and equated it with abuse. While Surly Amy isn't using the word 'cyberstalking, this comment of mine seems most appropriate here:

Some people at this point may be thinking, "well, you're blaming the victim!" Before a glib dismissal would take place -- and perhaps in anticipation of it in the comment section or related comments -- it is important to consider some points. As a blogger [on a popular blog network], people should expect [if they garner a large enough audience] to receive criticism in many forms including personal attacks, strawmans, discourse similar to that of or otherwise indistinguishable from YouTube comments, and more. While this behavior might not be the nicest thing for one to do (rather than, for example, taking the person's argument, being charitable, avoiding personal attacks, etc) and I don't condone it, it will happen - and should be expected. A person who enters the blogosphere and then complains (or, perhaps, to stay in tune of being charitable, is expressing dissatisfaction with) about criticism while calling it cyberstalking, harassment, etc. seems to be in an awkward place and -- as others might say -- making a mountain out of a molehill.

Next, Surly Amy says she is "not going to pal around with people who think the angry trolls are funny."



I responded as is seen above (and Melody Hensley, for whatever reason, chimed in saying she blocked me long ago - [for what I do not know]).

Here is an important part of the discussion. Certain forms of satire, humor, and parody are funny to some and not funny to others. Surly Amy seems to realize this, but apparently, she can't tolerate [respect may be the better word] others' different tastes - subjective matters that are facts about individuals. Why should different tastes between people -- at least in the case of what one thinks is funny and what one thinks is not funny -- be grounds for termination of friendships, 'palling around,' or whatever else?

Is it fair, then, to judge one's character because one sees something to be funny while another does not even when it is quite obvious that people have different tastes? Surly Amy thinks so:



...and it's much worse that that,



Seeing things in a different way, Surly Amy says, even thought is it "fine," "means we will probably never be friends." What a shame, really.

So, with that, and after Surly Amy acknowledges people see things in different ways and that that is "fine,"



Surly Amy asserts I am "trying to tell [her] it is not" hurtful...even though that was never the case. I said that I saw something as satire/parody and not hurtful.

Next,





Surly Amy then seems to translate my disagreement with her -- for whatever reason -- into "You don't care about me or the feeling of the women who write for Skepchick" even though she acknowledged that people see things in different ways and that that is "fine." Disagreement, though, shouldn't be construed as disrespect.

...and apparently, if one says one is hurt by something, "the debate over whether something is hurtful is moot."



On another person's account, as it seems, a satirist who continues to satirize after someone asks to stop is an "ass." It's also "not hard to understand," this person says, that if "the target of a joke says they are hurt, then it's hurtful. By definition."



Finally -- as far as the Surly Amy discussion was concerned -- I was branded as a troll. Surly Amy then asked me to leave her alone.



This is very odd considering I was having a conversation with Surly Amy -- the result of Tweets directed at me -- that she willfully continued for quite some time. ...and I was blocked.

This was followed by several general tweets of her own that I presume were in regards to my blocking including name-calling and interesting generalizations:



Surly Amy notes, "I guess a lot of people were attracted to the movement so they could be right all the time and never learned how to be wrong" following with "Sad rally. It takes empathy, listening skills and the ability to make mistakes and admit them to gain wisdom." Apparently, though, Surly Amy can't possibly be wrong? Apparently, she couldn't use listening skills, etc. to gain wisdom from those who happen to disagree with her?

A major part of being a skeptic is the willingness to reconsider and and all ideas. Surly Amy, in this case, doesn't seem to want to do this. If she believes something is true or feels a certain way, on her account, at least in this situation, there is "no debate."

It is also important to recognize that people -- with varying values, tastes, and experiences -- can disagree and still remain (or be) friends. For Surly Amy, disagreement on this matter ends any possibility of a friendship; she apparently can't tolerate a difference of opinion (or perception, perhaps more accurately) in this case.

Further, disagreement -- as Surly Amy sees it -- constitutes not caring about the feelings of people. Why should this be the case? Why can't people disagree and still care about others' feelings? This seems to be nothing more than a personal attack and what seems to be 'mind reading' on behalf of Surly Amy. How can she possibly know if I care or do not care about her feelings? What good reason does she have to suggest that I do not. Does agreement with the way she feels allow for the only possibility of caring about her feelings? I disagree with many friends of mine on similar matters. I even have a specific Catholic friend who was really angry following my complaint regarding a county courthouse nativity scene in 2009. He felt, just to note one thing, that I was a bad person for filing the complaint. I thought his appraisal was unreasonable. I disagreed and remain friends. This doesn't mean that I didn't care about his feelings...and it doesn't stop us from being friends with one another. Hell, I even disagree with Surly Amy on many issues and have purchased her jewelry (see picture).

Many others in the community complained that they were 'offended' and had 'hurt feelings' following my 2009 activism. Clearly, we disagree. Does this mean that I should have stopped my activism [or never have complained in the first place] because they claim offense? Following Surly Amy's logic would seem to lead us to this conclusion. Because she feels hurt, and feels that a Twitter account is hateful, on her account, persons who voice dissent with her position and/or disagree don't care about her feelings. If feelings of one who views something as hurtful are more important than -- or otherwise outweigh -- the thoughts or feelings of another, does the one who claims offense automatically 'win out?' After all, on Surly Amy's account, there is "no debate." Further, should this then serve as an imposition on another's behavior - to say that a person is wrong for continuing a particular behavior and should cease activity?

Initially, remember, Surly Amy said that people should be "embarrassed" for following the parody account saying "It's also really sad" that speakers at The Amazing Meeting follow and re-tweet the parody account "and think it is acceptable." Surly Amy said it is "ridiculous" for Sharon Hill to "promote and endors[e]" what Surly Amy called "a hate account." ...and, to Sharon Hill, You can't think it's all in good fun. It's hurtful and rude to say the least." It seems, then, that consider these Tweets and various others by Surly Amy, that there is a moral demand (in addition to a character evaluation) for people to cease following Twitter accounts they find funny by Surly Amy finds to be hurtful and not funny.

This standard would have serious implications for skeptics, blasphemers, and practically anyone. If someone claims offense to one's behavior -- whether the intentions of a person are well-meaning or not -- and there is "no debate" about the situation because one is offended, the person would or should feel morally obligated to cease a certain behavior. Obviously, this would be most unreasonable - and goes to show why Surly Amy's reasoning on this matter seems to be most unreasonable. Satirists, including those of The Onion, would be immoral monsters.

Surly Amy might feel offended by something. Fine, as she says. This, though, should not create demands on others or justify a character evaluation of someone as a 'bad person' for not sharing her feelings on the matter. The appropriate response to a difference in comedical taste, then, ought to be -- in most cases -- tolerance or, perhaps better, a recognition that others will feel differently and a disagreement with the person.

In April of 2012, in a post titled "A response to those who claim offense," I wrote some words which seem quite fitting in this situation that I will end this post with:

In a 'marketplace of ideas' and a pluralistic society that is not filled with 'yes men' or 'yes woman,' some people will feel offended or provoked by certain content because people regard their beliefs as important self-identifying characteristics and view 'threats' to their beliefs as character attacks. Someone is bound to claim offense when issues such as worldviews and religions are being scrutinized. Before claiming offense, though, or acting in an immature fashion -- especially when content with quite a mild tone is being considered -- people ought to realize that disagreement is inevitable. Just about anyone can claim to be offended by just about anything, so the questions that should be considered are "Is it reasonable for me to claim offense?" and "What should the response be to content I consider offensive?" before people jump to unreasonable conclusions and make unreasonable demands for others to cease expressing their ideas. 

One person's 'offensive content' is the next person's 'telling it like it is' that is, as some may see it, quite uncontroversial. With a sea of differing value judgments and barometers as to what is appropriate and inappropriate, it seems futile to protest to anything and everything out there. While there may be no objective standard for what can be considered offensive (mainly, perhaps, because this is an issue of personal taste and there is no quick-and-dirty way to distinguish 'offensive' from 'not offensive'), we shouldn't despair. The proper reaction to what one considers to be offensive, then, considering mentioned issues, is a mature attitude in which one realizes that people will happen to disagree - and disagreement shouldn't force or otherwise demand people to cease from publishing 'any old content.'