As I said in the OP, CFI is heading down the road to irrelevancy. Whether you agree with my assessment of Lindsay's speech or think I'm reading too much into his statements, his speech and the board's subsequent (in)actions have dealt a severe blow to CFI's credibility.Maybe. But even if that were the case, Lindsay is hardly to be blamed for it. Fuck political correctness. Well I'm insulted by the way people pronounce my name, "Scott" with the second "t" silent. Everybody in their right mind knows it's the first "t" that's silent!
First, Darron, you mentioned the ad hominum attacks in his first paragraph. I’m confused. It appeared that he was quoting the bible to show just how severely women have been oppressed since early history. How is that ad hominum?
Throughout history more powerful individuals and groups have subjugated the less
powerful. Some examples of greater power have been numbers, advanced technology,
earlier existence in a location, and physical strength. There have been a wide variety of
groups that have suffered. Some bases are ethnicity, religion, race, gender, social
belief, physical strength, sexual orientation. As societies became more civilized,
oppressed groups have become more vocal in their objection to that persecution and
organized into groups for more strength.
Since there were many areas of persecution, there were many oppressed groups, each
with their own agenda. Within these groups members ranged from those advocating
mild compromise to strongly militant. There is a place for each of these approaches in
each group; the most militant motivating people to action. However, those most militant
often take extreme positions which may actually harm their cause by alienating those
outside the group who are have positive views of the group’s goals.
One of these is the belief that no one outside the oppressed group can possibly know
or understand the concerns of the group. One can find statements expressing this from
some individuals in just about every oppressed group. While possibly not voiced in the
same words, they often have the meaning of “shut up and listen".
Another extreme position is ignoring the goals of other groups and demanding that
everyone join their particular war. While they may have positive feelings about the
other areas, but different people want to focus most of their energy toward getting rid of
religion and theism, another to eliminating oppression of gays, African-Americans, or
women. They are not evil because they happen to be working toward assisting another
group.
The above is what I got from Lindsay’s speech. Did I miss something, or is some of the
above an insult to the women’s movement?
Occam
The ad hominem attacks were in a post about Rebecca Watson’s reaction to Lindsay’s speech, which Lindsay posted here]. He has since posted a sincere apology for that, but publishing such a screed exhibits questionable judgment, especially for someone who purports to promote inclusion.
A “sincere” apologyg? I hope not. If if were sincere, then you’ve got nothing to complaint about. Nah, he is not being sincere, he is merely trying to play your game. For which I blame you.
After having read about as much of this as I can stand, both from the various links and here, I realize that this is similar to theological arguments. There can be no common ground or understanding of each other’s position so it’s a waste of time bothering with it.
Occam
Can I just say that I find it a bit odd to have a man making a speech at a conference called “Women in Secularism.” I’d expect the speeches to by, you know, women. I only skimmed the offending speech, but I have to say, it reads dull, tepid, and the kind of thing that were I trapped in a conference and had to listen to, I’d be searching for sharp objects by which I might be able to put myself out of my misery.
Lindsay sounds like a bit of a blowhard, who thought that he’d use the platform to try and make some oblique jabs at people who’d upset him. It failed, but it did manage to subsume a much larger issue: Namely that we live in a society dominated by people who adhere to toxic beliefs. Not merely religious ones, but also political ones, and unfortunately, many people have mistaken shouting at one another for reasoned discourse. Until those things get solved, a bunch of Ivory Tower types taking jabs at one another isn’t doing anyone any good. Stop accusing one another of falsely labeling the other, and start lobbying for the teaching of critical thinking skills in the schools, as well as the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Once you’ve got those things taken care of, you can split hairs about who is “privileged” in our society.
After having read about as much of this as I can stand, both from the various links and here, I realize that this is similar to theological arguments. There can be no common ground or understanding of each other's position so it's a waste of time bothering with it. OccamIt's now February 2017. What's new? Has the whole thing folded and turned into a sort of, hmmm metaphorically speaking an almost empty VFW club bar With the survivors tried of their own old stories? What is the connection between CFI and Skeptics Society?
Point of Inquiry is still going with new hosts. I don’t listen to every episode but it is in regular rotation on road trips. Still a very good podcast.
Under the points mentioned...Lordie lordie aren't we dripping with superiority, wake up in a pissy mood? There are many forms of name calling, you are not immune from tossing them out either, so please ease up. After just reviewing a number of your other posts in various threads I need to ask, are you too tender or defensive to take what you lay out yourself? I find it interesting that some resent having a lot of links shared. As though presenting independent verification of certain points being made, or offerings sources that helped form one's own, or that might offer some education to others, or that sharing breaking news stories is bad thing. Perhaps some of us even hope to start a little discussion with a story we found fascinating, why is that a bad thing?. Particularly when one is more than happy to following up with discussion , as opposed to simply drive-bys. Well, I think myself believe that people who go around making up shit and never checking in with the rest of the world is pretty stupid and pointless also. I've notice you love the short esoteric post, and then often don't follow up on discussion. Looks like we could all use a bit of communication and socializing skills improvement. cheers* Go offline before going online: pick up the phone * Listen more * Dial down the dramaOur own, internal board here is full of name calling, insults, and interpreting in the worst light possible...then claiming scientific genius and providing links, links, links and links to prove the simple points. Apparently, those who post dozens of links and call names have a difficult time saying things concisely and cogently. Such skills only come from practice and a desire to do so.
CFI Programn being weird again - won’t let me delete that superfluous “think” at the bottom. I hit post and its says I’m posting a spam link even though, this time ;-P, there’s no link in the entire comment. :ohh:
Apparently, those who post dozens of links and call names have a difficult time saying things concisely and cogently.This is quite ironic coming from someone who posts word salads, ignores requests for clarity, and routinely starts threads but doesn't return to continue the discussions. BTW, posting links is also known as providing sources. I'd think someone with a PhD would understand that.
How about starting a new thread? This discussion started in June 2013–almost 4 years go. There has been a lot of water over the dam since then. Let’s have a rational update and reconsideration of the issues.
Naw. No need for a new thread*. This one has run it’s course.
*Now if you want to start a new thread regarding PoI with its new hosts, that would be great. I am enjoying the podcast despite my previous misgivings.
How about starting a new thread? This discussion started in June 2013--almost 4 years go. There has been a lot of water over the dam since then. Let's have a rational update and reconsideration of the issues.Well, that's actually what my comment was going to be about. And since this thread started during the apparent (I may be a regular at the Forum but know little, little about the organization) {Though I did go to my first skeptics meeting, they been holding in Durango for ever, but I'd never gone before. I got lucky too, a young (20s) gal telling her story of breaking away from her family and Jehovah's Witnesses, everyone agreed it was one of the better talks they've heard} during the apparent down fall of the central characters, or was it just the one head pooba, who knows? Thus I was looking of an informed update. I no idea why Smith tossed that turd from deep deep right field, but it had nothing to do with my question or this thread, but that's not enough to nullify the entire thread. History is very important to me Lois, this thread seems part of history. ;-P Of course, if someone that knows and cares about the organization feels they want to start a new thread to bring us outsiders up to date on the internal dramas and heartbreaks of the Skeptic Society please do. Heck I don't even understand how CFI and Skeptic Society are related.
Well, what I found so far doesn't convince me that Ron Lindsay did anything to disrespect women. If this is some contention about etiquette, it is insulting to the nature of open discussion to presume that the way one communicates has more relevance than the logic underlying it. I also disagree with the assumption that feminism is an inherent stance of being skeptical or humanistic. I also disagree that the nature of religion itself is responsible for any intentional discrimination against women. A religion can easily be formed to favor any arbitrary group or set of individuals while discriminating against them as well. Also, just because a particular religion, like one select form of Christianity can be shown to have historical roots or contemporary attitudes of such behavior, to presume that society would have been different without them is not established logically. I find the actions of these individuals from the Point of Inquiry to quit on the basis of emotional disgust just a form of emotional blackmail to others who should not toe the line of conforming to some restricting etiquette. If this was their basis to resign, I wouldn't even be interested in wanting to hear what they have to say in the future now because I would feel like I'd have to adapt to their arbitrary rules for obedience to be an active participant in any discussion. "Sure, let's discuss your dissident views on prayer; But let's begin first with a prayer to open the meeting."How do you define frminism?
When I tried to correct the typo my post above I received a notice that my post might be spam so it was discarded. I tried twice and got the same notice.
WHAT?
I wrote “How do you define feminism.” How that equates to spam I have no idea.
When I tried to correct the typo my post above I received a notice that my post might be spam so it was discarded. I tried twice and got the same notice. WHAT? I wrote "How do you define feminism." How that equates to spam I have no idea.Strange, twice at this thread... Or has trump hacked us. :ahhh: someone must have put a jinx on this thread.
How about starting a new thread? This discussion started in June 2013--almost 4 years go. There has been a lot of water over the dam since then. Let's have a rational update and reconsideration of the issues.You noticed this... And ask a question on a posting from 26 June 2013?
Well, what I found so far doesn't ...How do you define feminism? And thereby the poster is already gone for a long time...He was banned on his own request.
How about starting a new thread? This discussion started in June 2013--almost 4 years go. There has been a lot of water over the dam since then. Let's have a rational update and reconsideration of the issues.You noticed this... And ask a question on a posting from 26 June 2013?
Well, what I found so far doesn't ...How do you define feminism? And thereby the poster is already gone for a long time...He was banned on his own request. Wow, must people request to be banned? How bizzarre! Can't they just unsubscribe? I guess those are silly questions. Lois
When I tried to correct the typo my post above I received a notice that my post might be spam so it was discarded. I tried twice and got the same notice. WHAT? I wrote "How do you define feminism." How that equates to spam I have no idea.Strange, twice at this thread... Or has trump hacked us. :ahhh: someone must have put a jinx on this thread. I'd vote for having been hacked by Trump.