E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
The responses on this thread will not go down in the annals of skepticism since it looks like an attempt to shoot the messenger and move swiftly on .There was even a post suggesting that We write this off.
As long as people understand that attending science conferences, atheist meetings or whatever, is no different to attending any other large gathering of people, that is fine. My impression is that many do not, hence the accusations and issues reported.
Did Vladdo ever manage to tell us what this supposed "issue" might be, or are we writing this off now as a failed slur by association?Ta.
In which Vladdo fails or refuses to grasp that, far from "shooting the messenger", what's actually happened is that he's been asked what this supposed message might be.So far at least he's been entirely unwilling or unable to tell us. Until he does, there is no message and therefore no "messenger" at all. There is however someone who thinks slurring by association is legitimate – a different matter entirely.
I'm not even sure what the intended slur is meant to be, since Vlad is being so coy about it. Presumably, it would be that atheism or anti-theism lead to immoral actions, and 'prominent antitheist' has just been found out? Is that right? Who can say since Vlad is being so secretive.
So that didn't say the actions of Krauss should be written off. You owe bhs an apology for that
I said he suggested it. Was the suggestion not made?
6. What are you trying to convey via this OP?
I've already stated that.
No, the post quoted does not suggest writing off accusations about Krauss. You owe bhs an apology for saying it does.
I have to disagree since that would result from writing this off as Vlad action.
The lying is strong today I see.
Oh no Hillside thinks he's EmperorPalpatine.
That is not an apology for misrepresenting him.
Udayana,How could it be other than disappointing given what it is – a slur by association?First, how does the behaviour of someone making an argument undermine the merits of the argument? Would a murderer who argues, “murder is wrong” invalidate his argument because he’s a murderer?
Second, who argues that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias” in any case, and how?
Only if people are stupid or unpleasant enough to conflate the science with the people doing it (see the OP for an example of the eror). Does great music for example somehow become less great if you find out the composer was a proto nazi?
That’s as grotesque a distortion as Vlad’s OP. First, they’re just science conferences, not “science” conferences as you slyly imply; second, “hooking up with younger hopefuls” as you put it is an entirely stand alone matter from the science, and indeed from conferences in general.Shame on you.
I don't understand why you are still expecting this.The words write this off are his.The context that I am wrong to bring this up is his ideaThe support you are giving him on his points where he appears to know what my motives are which are his idea and cannot be directly attributed to me is yours.I don't have to expose myself to the posse so I'm afraid it's ciao for now.
