Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A note on Popular Science’s editorial tantrum = new “no comments” policy, …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

… as noted here by Nullasalus:

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

One way of understanding this editorial tantrum is to relate it to the transition from old to new media.

Note that the publication is not called Academic Science, it is called Popular Science. That, presumably, means dealing with the public (republic?) of regular readers with an interest in science. There will be challenges one might not have expected from within an established old boys’/girls’ club.

It used to be that commenting on stories could only be done privately. That was old media. Today, a popular medium can gain a large population of new readers with new voices, with the only cost being the staff time expense created by the need to boot trolls.

As we know, science is not in the business of “scientific certainty,” but of replicable evidence. The reader input the editors are complaining of would not be happening if the subject areas were not in a state of contention and flux, commonly called “news.”

Incidentally, speaking of states of flux, Earth’s climate usually is in just such a state, which is why dogmatism on the subject is so easy to challenge, if not ridicule. Evolution is always hostage to the next fossil dug up or the latest counter-theory genomic finding.

People who really need certainty should investigate a line of work other than science media. But maybe that decision will be made for them by the course of events.

Comments
BioLogos just sounds theological, doesn't it? They should have named it Word of Life.Mung
October 25, 2013
October
10
Oct
25
25
2013
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Well, it seems that BioLogos is now taking a leaf out of Pop. Science's book - consciously. They cite that periodical as an influence on their own decision. As a regular contributor there, I can tell you conversations there are so mild they make this place look like Why Evolution is True. The real reason may be that hardly any of those who post, even supporters of theistic evolution, support BioLogos' esoteric theology.Jon Garvey
October 25, 2013
October
10
Oct
25
25
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Jerad, when you see the kind of hate speech and behaviour typified by what has been going on at and around TSZ (including above), the unjustified enmity and bigotry are plain. Wake up!
I'm not very often that interested in what's going on at TSZ. So I'll decline your invitation to observe it. I've stopped reading your blog as well by the way. I also do not read PZ Meyers blog. I quite like Carl Zimmer. I do follow Evolution News and Views from The Discovery Institute and I've been listening to their podcast, ID The Future since 2008 or so. I do subscribe to The Panda's Thumb, Why Evolution Is True (by Jerry Coyne and others) and . . . what's it called . . . Larry Moran's blog. But in those three cases I rarely read an entire blog post. I do check out (frequent contributor here) Joe's blog, Intelligent Reasoning, but he seems to has disappeared over the last week or so. I sometimes read posts by Michael Egnor but not always. KF, you do realise that in my post 64 I didn't get the blockquote right and the first paragraph is actually from a post by Axel? I think you do based on your comments to him but I just want to make sure that is clear.Jerad
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
EL:
If people don’t think that “keep alive for yourselves the virgins” doesn’t mean “keep alive for yourselves the virgins to have sex with”, fine. It seems to me the obvious reading.
Did you bother to read my post? You know, the one that explained your supposed biblical comment at #31 (or thereabouts)?Barb
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Brent:
Barb, I appreciate what you’ve taken the time to post, but I don’t recommend bothering. People have to want the truth before they are shown it. That’s why I just taunt; either they’ll shut up or be shamed to change.
Yes, I know; "pearls before swine" and all that. However, I feel impelled to at least try to correct misconceptions when I see them online.Barb
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Jerad, when you see the kind of hate speech and behaviour typified by what has been going on at and around TSZ (including above), the unjustified enmity and bigotry are plain. Wake up! KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Jerad @ 64:
What stops you from opening fire upon meetings of the American Atheists?
"Thou shalt not kill", for one thing. And for another thing: Christ Jesus, while on earth, showed that his servants should not arm themselves for physical warfare, when saying to Peter: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mt 26:52)Barb
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Axel: Do you know the history of that accusation? Or the reality of the French Terror's mad leadership? I would be very, very hesitant before calling anyone an enemy of mankind. That would require extraordinary evidence of the level of a mass murdering tyrant. And, I just simply will never accept that any large number of ordinary folks would be that. People are just not like that, not on any sustained basis in large numbers. A mad demonic coterie of terrorists and tyrants, yes. With serious proof of that enmity by willful, knowing mass murder. Nuremberg stuff. (Or Stalin, who got away without a trial here, but I am sure faces Higher Justice.) But, the FEAR of enmity of humanity targetting scapegoated groups has ever been the tool of the demonic propagandist and tyrant, who would stir a mass hysteria that so induces hate and blinding rage that we end up with kulturkampfs, pogroms, show trials, and worse. Of course, tenure committees can be a mild level form of this -- especially with radicals baying for blood and uncorrected prejudices and slanders in play. In the case of Nero, the report was that he literally turned Christians into living torches in his garden parties; having slandered them as setting the fire of Rome of 64 AD. And, the net effect was to further sink him in the estimation of the people who had hitherto seen him as a bringer of prosperity. So, Axel, STOP. Think again. Yes, there are fever swamps out there, there is a movement that foolishly seeks to turn God into a figure of ridicule and loathing. There are nihilists who use the gateway provided by the amorality and radical relativism of evolutionary materialism to seize power that they wield unjustly and destructively. The ordinary man -- and more particularly, his mother, wife, sister and daughter -- just will not as a block go there. Though, the malicious and clever propagandist can induce persecution of a despised minority, even to death through triggering a hysteria. Also, a radical mob though a minority can intimidate especially a disarmed majority, and that goes in spades for secret police. And, once a prejudice is ingrained it can be hard to uproot. (Cf the overnight updates including the links to Yancey and Bergman on that. Some radical propagandists have some serious accounting to do.) Please think again and do better. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
EL,
. . . and William Lane Craig for one seems to agree that it is problematic.
WLC explained why it is not problematic. How could you have missed that? You were off by, oh, a mere 180 degrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH0c_rWkang And your previously linked: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites#ixzz2g75p4biA Rape? Not mentioned once. It seems that is what you wanted to imply Dr. Craig was talking about, along with "genocide" (which you have kindly redefined along with rape so that you can bring the charges that you want. Sounds like something that was done to God's Son, too).
"What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?" - G.K. Chesterton
"They burned their own corn to set fire to the church; they smashed their own tools to smash it; any stick was good enough to beat it with, though it were the last stick of their own dismembered furniture." - G.K. Chesterton
Brent
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Ooops, mucked up the block quotes in 64 above. Again. The first paragraph is from Axel's post number 61.Jerad
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
I don’t know why KF is so annoyed by this ‘enemies of humanity’ thing. It is, or should be the exact mirror image of how we see you and your world-view. There is a spiritual war of a scarcely inconceivable scale, in which we are on opposite sides. To me, you are killers of mind and body, some of you, very urbane and charming, but all the more deadly for that. "[K]illers of mind and body." What stops you from opening fire upon meetings of the American Atheists?
Either you are for Christ or against him. That commitment to him, may not be formal, but it must be actual; and atheists (as opposed to agnostics) are, by definition, not actually for Christ, as well as not formal followers of him, but against him and his people; atheist polemicists, all the more so.
I don't understand why you think atheists are against "his people."Jerad
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
At risk of derailing a fascinating discussion about spiritual warfare, I found an interesting criticism of Popular Science's to close off its comments section: Are Internet Comments Really Bad for Science?Kantian Naturalist
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Jerad: FYI, there was a technical glitch that was cleared up overnight, hence the delay between intent and action. WP can be a bear.
Ah, that clears up something I hadn't quite understood.
And, I felt it necessary to make a clear statement that a threshold has been crossed. The attempt above to divert discussion to a village atheistical twisting of OT scriptures
And that clears up the reason for the closing of the thread. Since I'd been ignoring the scriptural discussion I was wondering, especially considering the comments you left in my posts.
Remember, the hook on which all of this has been hung is a point where I suggested that PS had an alternative of reverting to the old fashioned letters to the editor system, which was twisted into a false accusation of my advocating “censorship.”
I had also been generally staying out of that discussion topic.
When was the last time you saw a newspaper that entertains letters to the editor but not free for all comments and trolling on its com boxes, attacked for “censorship”? And in the specific context of TSZ, the above attempt at a red herring led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, distract, poison and polarise, tells me that there is indeed a willful refusal to listen to the point that the declarations that those you object to are enemies of humanity on grounds that pivot on grotesque conspiracy narratives and a silly notion that acknowledging that one’s worldview has a beginning point in first plausibles that are a faith point is an admission of irretrievable irrationality is a point where slander and defamation have entered.
That second sentence is a real dosey. Meaning it's long, not judging it's content. It was your call and I'm glad you cleared up some of my mis-understandings.Jerad
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Thank you. Do you see the implications for your interpretation of rape in the context. I don't know why KF is so annoyed by this 'enemies of humanity' thing. It is, or should be the exact mirror image of how we see you and your world-view. There is a spiritual war of a scarcely inconceivable scale, in which we are on opposite sides. To me, you are killers of mind and body, some of you, very urbane and charming, but all the more deadly for that. Either you are for Christ or against him. That commitment to him, may not be formal, but it must be actual; and atheists (as opposed to agnostics) are, by definition, not actually for Christ, as well as not formal followers of him, but against him and his people; atheist polemicists, all the more so.Axel
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Axel:
Instead, grace builds upon nature, by a slow process of repeated acts of the will, and this applies to cultures, as well as to individuals. It is a slow progression for both, although evidently for cultures, on a historical, much longer time-scale.
I'm delighted to find myself for once in agreement with you. Nicely put.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
If people don't think that "keep alive for yourselves the virgins" doesn't mean "keep alive for yourselves the virgins to have sex with", fine. It seems to me the obvious reading. Alternatively if you think it does, and that Moses is not implied to be relaying God's command in that passage, fine. However, at the very least, my reading seems to be a reasonable one, and William Lane Craig for one seems to agree that it is problematic. His solution to the problem, however, I find appalling. The much more obvious "solution" is that the passage is probably not an account of real events anyway, simply reflects actual practice, and was written, as most "histories" are by people who would like their version of events to be true and justified. But I would note, that quibbles about "for yourselves" aside, the passage is about genocide. Kill all the males and mothers, and introduce your own bloodline into the offspring of the remainder. And it appears to be mandated by the god that Christians are expected to worship.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
PS: Moderated, edited letters to the editor are DIRECTLY comparable to a moderated comment system. Where, though this can be abused, neither would inherently be censorship, so the scarlet brand, C for censor, is revealed to be yet another case of well poisoning. And I am sure that no one is ignorant that not all letters submitted are published. Indeed, such letters are typically treated as in fact short articles, subject to editing for form and content. (I remember once being edited in Jamaica so that my actual term, "strawman" was replaced with "misrepresentation." Close enough, I suppose, and less technical. And the letter I submitted on an updated view of von Mises' thesis, tot he effect that economic systems were equivalent to computer processor architecture and that a system of distributed planing based on markets as communication networks was less likely to choke on info than a centralised one, while also being more robust against loss of function by processors, was never published to my knowledge. It of course proved to be a pretty good predictor of the breakup of marxism and its centrally planned economy theme in the early 1990's. I think I went one step too far by using a technical analogy -- especially distributed computer processing -- to a newspaper that was going to be struggling with such. of course that was before the days of the widespread Internet.)kairosfocus
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
Jerad: FYI, there was a technical glitch that was cleared up overnight, hence the delay between intent and action. WP can be a bear. And, I felt it necessary to make a clear statement that a threshold has been crossed. The attempt above to divert discussion to a village atheistical twisting of OT scriptures -- apparently the objectors don't seem to understand the antisemitic implications [and notice, Jews have not exactly been noted for "raping" captive females for a very long time] -- instead of deal with the real issues on the table is truly revealing on motivation. Remember, the hook on which all of this has been hung is a point where I suggested that PS had an alternative of reverting to the old fashioned letters to the editor system, which was twisted into a false accusation of my advocating "censorship." When was the last time you saw a newspaper that entertains letters to the editor but not free for all comments and trolling on its com boxes, attacked for "censorship"? And in the specific context of TSZ, the above attempt at a red herring led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, distract, poison and polarise, tells me that there is indeed a willful refusal to listen to the point that the declarations that those you object to are enemies of humanity on grounds that pivot on grotesque conspiracy narratives and a silly notion that acknowledging that one's worldview has a beginning point in first plausibles that are a faith point is an admission of irretrievable irrationality is a point where slander and defamation have entered. Slander and other forms of defamation and incitement to hate are not and have never been protected speech under freedom of expression. For good reason. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
No, now I'm even more certain before that I'm lost. Is there a specific comment I've made that you're objecting to? If so, which one? I'm not playing dumb -- I really am dumb.Kantian Naturalist
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Bible. Rape. Command. Ringing any bells yet?Brent
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
KN, I currently have a sexual slave of 18 years. She’s doing some laundry for the family right now. Shall I send pictures of the chains and shackles?
No thanks, I can find my own pornography. But I'll let you know if I need help.
If you can’t take a simple hint, how is it that anyone should take with a grain of salt what you say the Bible says. It’s pretty funny, really, because the Bible hasn’t much problem with mincing words.
At this point I worry that I've my thread as to what we're talking about.
You should have stuck with the title “enabler” rather than “direct perpetrator”. But my suggestions to atheists are usually rejected on grounds of brain trauma being the likely result of asking them to think for a moment, and certain to result from asking them to be honest.
OK, now I'm certain that I've lost my thread as to what we're talking about.Kantian Naturalist
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Barb, I appreciate what you've taken the time to post, but I don't recommend bothering. People have to want the truth before they are shown it. That's why I just taunt; either they'll shut up or be shamed to change.Brent
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
KN, I currently have a sexual slave of 18 years. She's doing some laundry for the family right now. Shall I send pictures of the chains and shackles? If you can't take a simple hint, how is it that anyone should take with a grain of salt what you say the Bible says. It's pretty funny, really, because the Bible hasn't much problem with mincing words. You should have stuck with the title "enabler" rather than "direct perpetrator". But my suggestions to atheists are usually rejected on grounds of brain trauma being the likely result of asking them to think for a moment, and certain to result from asking them to be honest.Brent
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Since it was brought up: "Numbers 31: Slaughter of all but the virgins, and sexual slavery for those." The entire chapter deals with the Israelites waging war against the Midianites at God's command. They were establishing themselves in the land promised to them. But I can't find the quote EL uses. Verse 9 reads this way: "But the sons of Israel carried off the women of Mid?i·an and their little ones captive; and all their domestic animals and all their livestock and all their means of maintenance they plundered. " Then, in later verses (16-19), it reads like this: "So Moses said to them: “Have YOU preserved alive every female? 16?Look! They are the ones who, by Ba?laam’s word, served to induce the sons of Israel to commit unfaithfulness toward Jehovah over the affair of Pe?or, so that the scourge came upon the assembly of Jehovah. 17?And now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with man by lying with a male. 18?And preserve alive for yourselves all the little ones among the women who have not known the act of lying with a male." Here is the context that was obviously omitted above. The nomadic Midianites were also worried, and so their older men (elders) consulted with the older men of the Moabites. The latter observed: “Now this congregation will lick up all our surroundings like the bull licking up the green growth of the field.” (Num. 22:4) Balak, the king of the Moabites, sought the help of Balaam, a man who lived in the distant town of Pethor, evidently in the upper Euphrates valley near Haran. Although not an Israelite, Balaam had some knowledge and recognition of Jehovah the true God. Balak and his Midianite allies sent a delegation to Balaam requesting him to come and curse the Israelites. They conveyed Balak’s plea: “Now do come, please; do curse this people for me, for they are mightier than I am. Perhaps I may be able to strike them and I may drive them out of the land; for I well know that the one whom you bless is a blessed one and the one whom you curse is cursed.” (Num. 22:6) After arriving in Moab, Balaam made three attempts to curse Israel, but each time Jehovah caused Balaam to pronounce a blessing. Understandably King Balak was furious. “It was to execrate my enemies that I called you, and, look! you have blessed them to the limit these three times.” (Num. 24:10) This further evidence of God’s displeasure over Balaam’s desire to curse Israel did not diminish Balaam’s greedy desire for the reward. He now reasoned with Balak and also with the Midianite rulers that if they could cause the Israelites to become disloyal to Jehovah, then Jehovah himself would curse them. Balaam suggested that they entice the Israelites into engaging in sex worship of Baal of Peor. (Num. 31:16) These people were pagan sex worshipers who engaged in licentious rites as part of their worship of Baal, including ceremonial prostitution. So Israel attached itself [or, Israel paired themselves off, AT; or, Israel yoked himself, RS] to the Baal of Peor; and the anger of Jehovah began to blaze against Israel. (Numbers 25:1-5) Those unfaithful Israelites had been dedicated to the only living and true God, but now they separated themselves from Him to devote or dedicate themselves to Baal. To bring out that disloyal act, the Jewish Publication Society Bible says: “They separated themselves unto the shameful thing.” God commanded the loyal Israelites to strike them down. “Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying: ‘Let there be a harassing of the Midianites, and you men must strike them, because they are harassing you with their deeds of cunning that they committed against you cunningly in the affair of Peor and in the affair of Cozbi the daughter of a chieftain of Midian, their sister who was fatally struck in the day of the scourge over the affair of Peor.’” (Num. 25:16-18) The Midianite cities and walled camps in the area were consigned to the fire. Five kings of Midian, all the males, and every female who had had sexual intercourse, as well as Balaam, were put to death. (Num. 31:1-20)Barb
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, I will not censor material on my site. I strongly believe that people have a right to say what they think, whether they are mistaken or not.
To be fair, kf, you should inquire as to what Lizzie thinks "censorship" consists of.
I agree with you that there are legal limits and I take care that those legal limits are not crossed, but in my view nothing on my site crosses those legal limits.
See, she will censor if certain boundaries are crossed.Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
KF has closed down this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-pro-darwinism-essay-challenge-unanswered-a-year-later-i-lets-get-the-essence-of-design-theory-as-a-scientific-inductive-inference-straight/ And has added comments to some of my last posts there including this in comment 249:
I have terminated this thread after dealing with a glitch, as a warning that we have here crossed a serious threshold and that rhetoric as usual and enabling as usual are not good enough.
A warning. No mention of what glitch caused a problem. And this from KF's added comment to my post 250:
it seems you are choosing not to notice that we are now dealing with someone, EL, who is hosting a blog where — in an atmosphere of slanders and conspiracy stories taken as unquestionable fact — millions have been deemed “ENEMIES OF HUMANITY” without a peep of protest. And on being formally notified of same, we see a blithe business as usual, rhetorical attack as usual, enabling as usual mentality. This is not freedom of expression, it is enabling of slander and hate speech. Something YOU are secondarily enabling by trying to further spread a false accusation of censorship over difference of opinion. Hate speech and enabling thereof fall outside the pale of such freedom. You too need to take warning.
Jerad
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
How about, 'to marry', or to keep as a 'concubine'? It is an axiom of Christianity that we don't just become virtuous by a simple choice to be so (least of all, in accordance with a code of morality of our own choosing). Consequently, concubinage - seemingly, a kind of permanent 'droit de seigneur', where royalty was concerned, was not considered to be slavery. Probably, privilege! I'm thinking of Esther. In fact, generally, slavery, itself, in biblical times was far less satanic than that imposed by European, putatively Christian countries and the Americas, 2000 years and more, later. However, it was not atheists, but Christians who put a stop to it. Instead, grace builds upon nature, by a slow process of repeated acts of the will, and this applies to cultures, as well as to individuals. It is a slow progression for both, although evidently for cultures, on a historical, much longer time-scale. As an example of this, it should be no matter for wonderment that, the Patriarch, Jacob, went with what he thought was a roadside prostitute,) but was actually, I believe, his grand-daughter, By his son, Judah). And so it goes; standards, formally at least improve over time. Today, with the rise of atheism in the West, there has been a recrudescence of slavery, most notably, sex-slavery. Indeed, more than at any time in history. But here, in the link, below, is the real story of how Christ raised the status of women in an unprecedented way, though we, his Christian followers have in some regards, tended to drag our feet. I'm thinking in particular that in the early fifties, I believe, women in the UK were still not permitted to have a cheque book! Ironical, when you consider they've probably budgeted for the family since the expulsion from Eden, and some male bank manages opined that they weren't cut out to be bank managers! http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218049/k.3C57/Christianity_The_Best_Thing_That_Ever_Happened_to_Women.htmAxel
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
PS: And all of this is built on an attempt to twist my pointing the alternative of PS reverting to the old fashioned letters to the editor into a pretence that I advocate censorship, as though that is the only alternative to enabling the gross slander, hate speech and branding millions as ENEMIES OF HUMANITY.kairosfocus
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
EL, at this point you have made it quite plain that you are a willing enabler of slander, hate speech, conspiracy theories and kulturkampf, at your blog and elsewhere. You then tried a bit of turnabout accusation and Village atheist eisegesis to poison the atmosphere. All of this after it took a full year of prodding to get a half hearted response on a challenge to actually warrant your case. Game over. KFkairosfocus
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
I just can’t believe you don’t understand, KN. I really mean it. There’s just no excuse for not seeing what I’m getting at. In the off chance that you are on heavy cold medication or something however, the point is that YOU had to supply the rape charge above, while the text, which you said you just read, doesn’t say anything about rape, or sexual slavery.
Then you must have a very narrow understanding of "say". In the verse in question ("But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves", Numbers 31:18), the phrase, "keep alive for yourselves" has the pragmatic implicature of sexual slavery. But presumably that is precisely what you wish to deny. Or perhaps you wish to deny that the ancient Israelites shared the ancient (and, indeed, modern and contemporary) practice of rape of enemy women (and men) as one of the spoils of war. I don't see how it deniable, but OK, whatever you want. It's no sweat off my back either way.Kantian Naturalist
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply