I was struggling to grasp your point’s connection to mine until I remembered people read headlines without reading content, assessing arguments, checking primary sources.
Friendly Atheist’s post is about people leaving FFRF in response to FFRF removing an unpopular article in response to pressure.
Were their reasons true & do they justify their response?
They stated their reasons in the quoted excerpts & linked sources.
We don’t need to know who they are to evaluate those reasons.
Their reasons appear to be that
FFRF removed the article due to disagreement.
Removing the article suppresses disagreement.
By suppressing disagreement, the organization fails to defend its foundational value: freethought.
Seem true on all counts.
Do the reasons justify the response?
Does an organization’s failure to defend freethought justify leaving an organization that claims to defend it?
I would think so.
Would this argument justify absolutely anyone (even Dawkins) to leave FFRF?
That’s the beauty of a sound argument: who you are doesn’t matter.
The mere presence of disagreement doesn’t make freethought. If someone actively resists engaging with counter-arguments and scientific research because it would undermine their controversial public profile with a certain audience, it doesn’t serve any legitimate interest to further platform their deliberate ignorance.
I don’t know enough about the other two to speak on their relevant conduct, but the case of Richard Dawkins is quite clear-cut. Hence my comment pointing out how your criticism of the FFRF’s decision lacks awareness of the context that it was made in by providing this exact context to you and others.
I hope this helps you to understand my point’s connection to your original comment, if you really weren’t just playing dumb with me.
I was struggling to grasp your point’s connection to mine until I remembered people read headlines without reading content, assessing arguments, checking primary sources. Friendly Atheist’s post is about people leaving FFRF in response to FFRF removing an unpopular article in response to pressure. Were their reasons true & do they justify their response?
They stated their reasons in the quoted excerpts & linked sources. We don’t need to know who they are to evaluate those reasons. Their reasons appear to be that
Seem true on all counts.
Do the reasons justify the response? Does an organization’s failure to defend freethought justify leaving an organization that claims to defend it? I would think so.
Would this argument justify absolutely anyone (even Dawkins) to leave FFRF? That’s the beauty of a sound argument: who you are doesn’t matter.
The mere presence of disagreement doesn’t make freethought. If someone actively resists engaging with counter-arguments and scientific research because it would undermine their controversial public profile with a certain audience, it doesn’t serve any legitimate interest to further platform their deliberate ignorance.
I don’t know enough about the other two to speak on their relevant conduct, but the case of Richard Dawkins is quite clear-cut. Hence my comment pointing out how your criticism of the FFRF’s decision lacks awareness of the context that it was made in by providing this exact context to you and others.
I hope this helps you to understand my point’s connection to your original comment, if you really weren’t just playing dumb with me.