|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:13:41 GMT
A view shared by Peter Singer, a very celebrated and respectable academic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion,_euthanasia,_and_infanticide Watson was not stripped of his academic titles for his views on abortion or infanticide, but for his views on race. The Burkean article was on this issue, too. This wasn't a mere accident though, Dr. Watson has been advancing these views for decades. I'm actually surprised that people did not react sooner than they did. The fact that the people revoking the awards have their priorities messed up is a non sequitur - that doesn't somehow justify his scientific racism. There was a lot of oppostion to Singer too, and not just from social conservatives: Simon Wiesenthal openly objected to his presence at a book fair in Sweden, while the head of Forbes stopped donating to Princeton because of it. Admittedly, this doesn't rise to the level of reaction here, but it doesn't mean that Singer was allowed free reign to state his views unopposed. Singer's book on ethics is still a standard text in university. People HAVE been reacting against Watson for ages-- I've heard him criticized many times over the years. But reaction should be argument met by argument, not punishing people for their views. The Burkean is a "big tent" type journal, which is exactly what Irish conservatism needs-- not purity tests (of the left or the right).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:16:50 GMT
This wasn't a mere accident though, Dr. Watson has been advancing these views for decades. I'm actually surprised that people did not react sooner than they did. The fact that the people revoking the awards have their priorities messed up is a non sequitur - that doesn't somehow justify his scientific racism. There was a lot of oppostion to Singer too, and not just from social conservatives: Simon Wiesenthal openly objected to his presence at a book fair in Sweden, while the head of Forbes stopped donating to Princeton because of it. Admittedly, this doesn't rise to the level of reaction here, but it doesn't mean that Singer was allowed free reign to state his views unopposed. Singer's book on ethics is still a standard text in university. People HAVE been reacting against Watson for ages-- I've heard him criticized many times over the years. But reaction should be argument met by argument, not punishing people for their views. The Burkean is a "big tent" type journal, which is exactly what Irish conservatism needs-- not purity tests (of the left or the right). I think we could do without eugenics and defending those who claim that some people are inherently intellectually inferior, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:20:46 GMT
By giving him free reign to advocate scientific racism without consequences, they are effectively saying that there is nothing problematic with what he is doing. Well, again, I think that is a big leap.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:22:38 GMT
Singer's book on ethics is still a standard text in university. People HAVE been reacting against Watson for ages-- I've heard him criticized many times over the years. But reaction should be argument met by argument, not punishing people for their views. The Burkean is a "big tent" type journal, which is exactly what Irish conservatism needs-- not purity tests (of the left or the right). I think we could do without eugenics and defending those who claim that some people are inherently intellectually inferior, thanks. Well, I think we could do without PC-whipped globalists, but we can't all have everything we want. Let's try to be tolerant.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:28:23 GMT
I think we could do without eugenics and defending those who claim that some people are inherently intellectually inferior, thanks. Well, I think we could do without PC-whipped globalists, but we can't all have everything we want. Let's try to be tolerant. You're missing the point entirely, Maolsheachlann. By publishing such an article, the Burkean is effectively saying, at a minimum, that there is nothing objectionable about Dr. Watson's views on race and anyone who does is merely being a crybaby. I'm sorry, but I could never be tolerant of beliefs that I know to be evil, even if doing so makes me a "PC-whipped globalist".
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:32:37 GMT
Well, I think we could do without PC-whipped globalists, but we can't all have everything we want. Let's try to be tolerant. You're missing the point entirely, Maolsheachlann. By publishing such an article, the Burkean is effectively saying, at a minimum, that there is nothing objectionable about Dr. Watson's views on race and anyone who does is merely being a crybaby. I'm sorry, but I could never be tolerant of beliefs that I know to be evil, even if doing so makes me a "PC-whipped globalist". Do you accept that it will be a worrying day for Catholic academics, scientists, and Catholics in general when institutions decide they have a right to punish you for your private opinions? And society agrees? How can you defend the Watson case and not the Finnis case?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:33:41 GMT
You're missing the point entirely, Maolsheachlann. By publishing such an article, the Burkean is effectively saying, at a minimum, that there is nothing objectionable about Dr. Watson's views on race and anyone who does is merely being a crybaby. I'm sorry, but I could never be tolerant of beliefs that I know to be evil, even if doing so makes me a "PC-whipped globalist". Do you accept that it will be a worrying day for Catholic academics, scientists, and Catholics in general when institutions decide they have a right to punish you for your private opinions? How can you defend the Watson case and not the Finnis case? By the way, I'm not going to pretend this is my rationale. I genuinely believe in free speech and would defend a person's right to air their opinions even if it didn't put MY opinions at risk of suppression.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:38:43 GMT
Well, I think we could do without PC-whipped globalists, but we can't all have everything we want. Let's try to be tolerant. You're missing the point entirely, Maolsheachlann. By publishing such an article, the Burkean is effectively saying, at a minimum, that there is nothing objectionable about Dr. Watson's views on race and anyone who does is merely being a crybaby. I'm sorry, but I could never be tolerant of beliefs that I know to be evil, even if doing so makes me a "PC-whipped globalist". What do you mean by saying you can't be tolerant of beliefs you know are evil? Many of my family and some of my friends are pro-abortion. I make no secret of the strength of my own pro-life views. Should I disassociate myself from all these people? I have no intention of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:39:20 GMT
Do you accept that it will be a worrying day for Catholic academics, scientists, and Catholics in general when institutions decide they have a right to punish you for your private opinions? How can you defend the Watson case and not the Finnis case? By the way, I'm not going to pretend this is my rationale. I genuinely believe in free speech and would defend a person's right to air their opinions even if it didn't put MY opinions at risk of suppression. So because Catholics and far-rightists are both out of favour in academia, we should therefore support each other, or at least look the other way with respect to the latter's more repugnant views? That didn't work out very well in 1930s France...
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:43:16 GMT
You're missing the point entirely, Maolsheachlann. By publishing such an article, the Burkean is effectively saying, at a minimum, that there is nothing objectionable about Dr. Watson's views on race and anyone who does is merely being a crybaby. I'm sorry, but I could never be tolerant of beliefs that I know to be evil, even if doing so makes me a "PC-whipped globalist". What do you mean by saying you can't be tolerant of beliefs you know are evil? Many of my family and some of my friends are pro-abortion. I make no secret of the strength of my own pro-life views. Should I disassociate myself from all these people? I have no intention of doing so. A better analogy would be this: would you allow them to post on Irish Papist advocating abortion? If yes, you are compromising yourself. If no, then you accept that people have a right to refuse a platform to opinions they find objectionable.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:43:47 GMT
By the way, I'm not going to pretend this is my rationale. I genuinely believe in free speech and would defend a person's right to air their opinions even if it didn't put MY opinions at risk of suppression. So because Catholics and far-rightists are both out of favour in academia, we should therefore support each other, or at least look the other way with respect to the latter's more repugnant views? That didn't work out very well in 1930s France... What I support is free speech for all, except perhaps those who are EXPLICITLY calling for physical harm to be visited upon others. I'm not sure what is complicated about that. And in the eyes of the left, you ARE far right!
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:46:02 GMT
What do you mean by saying you can't be tolerant of beliefs you know are evil? Many of my family and some of my friends are pro-abortion. I make no secret of the strength of my own pro-life views. Should I disassociate myself from all these people? I have no intention of doing so. A better analogy would be this: would you allow them to post on Irish Papist advocating abortion? If yes, you are compromising yourself. If no, then you accept that people have a right to refuse a platform to opinions they find objectionable. How is that a better analogy? My blog is explicitly a Catholic blog. A university is (or should be) a place for free enquiry. Besides, these are not things Watson has said in his capacity as a lecturer, as far as I can see. I presume he is retired at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:46:28 GMT
So because Catholics and far-rightists are both out of favour in academia, we should therefore support each other, or at least look the other way with respect to the latter's more repugnant views? That didn't work out very well in 1930s France... What I support is free speech for all, except perhaps those who are EXPLICITLY calling for physical harm to be visited upon others. I'm not sure what is complicated about that. And in the eyes of the left, you ARE far right! Given that Dr. Watson has specifically called for unborn babies with disabilities to be aborted, I think that would come under your exception.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:49:13 GMT
A better analogy would be this: would you allow them to post on Irish Papist advocating abortion? If yes, you are compromising yourself. If no, then you accept that people have a right to refuse a platform to opinions they find objectionable. How is that a better analogy? My blog is explicitly a Catholic blog. A university is (or should be) a place for free enquiry. Besides, these are not things Watson has said in his capacity as a lecturer, as far as I can see. I presume he is retired at this stage. So you think that Catholic universities have every right to give accolades to people who publicly dissent from Church teachings on human life and sexuality? If a university is solely a place for free enquiry, there can be no objection in principle to such behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:51:44 GMT
What I support is free speech for all, except perhaps those who are EXPLICITLY calling for physical harm to be visited upon others. I'm not sure what is complicated about that. And in the eyes of the left, you ARE far right! Given that Dr. Watson has specifically called for unborn babies with disabilities to be aborted, I think that would come under your exception. Perhaps. But not suggesting there may be innate differences in intelligence between the races. (Again, a subject that doesn't interest me at all.)
|
|