Bill Nye Fallout and Debate Challenge Part 2 — Evolution's Junior Stormtroopers
 | |
|
What follows are some of my experiences that are used to illustrate the irrational behavior to which misotheists and anti-creationists can descend. Now, regarding harassment...
There are many kinds. Getting blasted in forums and on Weblogs is common, and to be expected. They are exercising their freedom of speech, even though they seldom have anything interesting to say.
But sometimes they kick it up a few notches, even to the point of stalking.
A fellow claiming to be a physicist at a junior college was rather annoying, wanting my attention on his highly forgettable blog-o-fallacies, which included an oft-repeated lie about the Catholic Church and Galileo, which is easily refuted (Galileo was criticized by the scientific community of his time, not "religion"). It is "a given" that people like this with poor reasoning abilities frequently use ridicule and logical fallacies to attack people rather than deal with concepts.
He became aggressive on Facebook. I reported and blocked him. Then he sent me annoying e-mails, which I reported and blocked. Then he wrote to another of my e-mail addresses to continue to harass me, so I reported and blocked him again. I do wonder about the standards of a junior college that will tolerate such unprofessional antics of someone who claims to be on their faculty; I certainly would not want someone bringing down the name of my establishment. So, this priest of peevishness got what he wanted, which is a few lines of attention from me.
Moving on...
"Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" (I named him "Haywire the Stalker") spammed my e-mail with personal attacks (and sent CCs to dozens of other people). When I blocked and reported him for spamming and harassment, he promptly wrote to another of my e-mail accounts, just like the alleged physics professor mentioned earlier. This kind of behavior indicates that they have little regard for the rights and sensibilities of others.
There are many kinds. Getting blasted in forums and on Weblogs is common, and to be expected. They are exercising their freedom of speech, even though they seldom have anything interesting to say.
But sometimes they kick it up a few notches, even to the point of stalking.
A fellow claiming to be a physicist at a junior college was rather annoying, wanting my attention on his highly forgettable blog-o-fallacies, which included an oft-repeated lie about the Catholic Church and Galileo, which is easily refuted (Galileo was criticized by the scientific community of his time, not "religion"). It is "a given" that people like this with poor reasoning abilities frequently use ridicule and logical fallacies to attack people rather than deal with concepts.
He became aggressive on Facebook. I reported and blocked him. Then he sent me annoying e-mails, which I reported and blocked. Then he wrote to another of my e-mail addresses to continue to harass me, so I reported and blocked him again. I do wonder about the standards of a junior college that will tolerate such unprofessional antics of someone who claims to be on their faculty; I certainly would not want someone bringing down the name of my establishment. So, this priest of peevishness got what he wanted, which is a few lines of attention from me.
Moving on...
"Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" (I named him "Haywire the Stalker") spammed my e-mail with personal attacks (and sent CCs to dozens of other people). When I blocked and reported him for spamming and harassment, he promptly wrote to another of my e-mail accounts, just like the alleged physics professor mentioned earlier. This kind of behavior indicates that they have little regard for the rights and sensibilities of others.
Here is some of what Haywire sent to me. He began by quoting a comment that I made on Dr. Purdom's Facebook post. Since he did not confront me there, I think it is likely that he was banned from that Page as well as mine. His comments are in black.
There are several assumptions here. First, he assumes that I cannot answer the question. Second, that there is only one Admin on that Facebook Page. Third, that whatever question he was asking was perfectly innocent and not breaking our rules as listed in the "About" section. (As to what the alleged question was, I don't rightly recollect.) Fourth, he is assuming it was worth answering in the first place (we get people who want us to be their obedient servants instead of doing any research themselves). Finally, he is making a straw man argument.
After being blocked, reported and informed, he e-mailed me at another account (which was blocked and reported as well). This article is long enough already, so I will just show some highlights:
By the way, there is nobody under a name resembling "A. Haworth-Roberts" on my block list. It seems reasonable to assume that he was using a different name on Facebook that was blocked, or that this one is fake. Or both. Edit: His e-mail address shows an account on Facebook that was created under his name on the same day that this article appeared. Adds to my theory that is he using multiple accounts. Later, he took out another account and began harassing me from that one, which I also blocked. He claims dissatisfaction with his original account, but when I see forwarded messages from him, the original e-mail account is still there.
"You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog."
"Perhaps Cowboy Bob Sorensen aka The Question Evolution Project...would like to deny that anybody asking a question he cannot answer is to be deemed 'arrogannt' or manipulative?'"Although I do not like to "typo pounce", if someone wants to be taken seriously, certain basic words like "arrogant" should be spelled correctly.
There are several assumptions here. First, he assumes that I cannot answer the question. Second, that there is only one Admin on that Facebook Page. Third, that whatever question he was asking was perfectly innocent and not breaking our rules as listed in the "About" section. (As to what the alleged question was, I don't rightly recollect.) Fourth, he is assuming it was worth answering in the first place (we get people who want us to be their obedient servants instead of doing any research themselves). Finally, he is making a straw man argument.
"THIS MESSAGE IS BEING COPIED TO BILL NYE'S EMAIL ADDRESS FOR INFORMATION
Please see my posts in this open discussion thread during the last 22 hours or so:"No, I'm not helping you in your relentless drive for self-promotion except for exposing your emotive and illogical remarks. No link for you.
You will see how these particular creationist Christians are apparently rattled by Mr Nye - and by way of 'response' resort to lying about science, undermining science in the name of Christianity, bad logic and personal attacks, accusations about secularists (who like me read blatant lies), claims that evolutionists "don't have evidence to support their view", half-baked arguments and pure propaganda (backed up with handy scriptures), and deliberate CENSORSHIP of all challenges made on Facebook - see the example which I saw and quoted at the BCSE Community Forum, JUST BEFORE it was removed. The message I quoted in full included the challenge to Dr Purdom: "A molecular geneticist knows this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that Dr. Purdom is using her credibility in the field of biology to deliberately mislead people; and even worse, she does not allow for open dialogue of her own statements. She censors debate about ideas she claims to uphold as truth instead of subjecting them to scrutiny. Is this the way a scientist should act? I dare you to let this comment stand."That rant is not worth a lengthy examination, I just wanted you to see that it is saturated with logical fallacies (including emotive language, straw man, assumptions with incomplete information, abusive ad hominem attacks, and so on) — and a great deal of whining. Many people like this seem to think they have the "right" to ridicule creationists or others who do not accept evolutionary orthodoxy — an entitlement mentality. And yet, he is using a (now defunct) forum for his personal soapbox, so he still is able to freely express his malignant opinions.
But don't just take all this from me! Check what I claim - and judge for yourselves.
Mr A Haworth-Roberts
After being blocked, reported and informed, he e-mailed me at another account (which was blocked and reported as well). This article is long enough already, so I will just show some highlights:
You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog. I was asking why you have such a policy and whether it was because you receive questions that you cannot successfully answer. I did not resort to any Ad hominem.He resorted to ad hominem attacks, as shown above.
By the way, there is nobody under a name resembling "A. Haworth-Roberts" on my block list. It seems reasonable to assume that he was using a different name on Facebook that was blocked, or that this one is fake. Or both. Edit: His e-mail address shows an account on Facebook that was created under his name on the same day that this article appeared. Adds to my theory that is he using multiple accounts. Later, he took out another account and began harassing me from that one, which I also blocked. He claims dissatisfaction with his original account, but when I see forwarded messages from him, the original e-mail account is still there.
"You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog."
Nope.
"I was asking why you have such a policy and whether it was because you receive questions that you cannot successfully answer."
Appeal to motive fallacy, and he changed his wording. Originally, it was an accusation, as shown above.
He is showing an attitude that people of this nature have the "right" to say whatever they want on other people's Weblogs and such. Calling Dr. Purdom a liar is a despicable, libelous, and absurd attempt at emotional manipulation.
I HAVE called Georgia Purdom a liar at the BCSE Community Forum, which I linked to in my PREVIOUS email (not the one first copied to you). I have also pointed out how she deleted more than 200 posts to her Facebook page - I cannot believe that all of them were 'vile'.Dr. Purdom was subjected to many vile comments that had to be deleted and commenters were blocked. My fanboi was helpful in documenting and even bragging about his remarks. (Amusingly, I was caught up in the ban-sweep myself, and was later reinstated. It happens.)
He is showing an attitude that people of this nature have the "right" to say whatever they want on other people's Weblogs and such. Calling Dr. Purdom a liar is a despicable, libelous, and absurd attempt at emotional manipulation.
Unless he can offer sufficient evidence that she is intending to deceive people. This ploy is frequently used by Darwin's Cheerleaders in their efforts to protect fundamentalist evolutionism. It is also contrary to the attitudes of true scientists! People can say that someone is wrong, that they disagree on the interpretations of the facts, show errors in their reasoning, find flaws in their models — that is a part of doing science. To call someone a "liar" in an effort to shut them up is anti-science and beneath contempt.
This one, which I saw before it was deleted, wasn't [vile]:On my Page, I would have deleted that nonsense as well. Not only is the reasoning faulty, he resorts to more logical fallacies. In addition, he is attacking Dr. Purdom's character. (Remember, this is the same Dr. Purdom who would like to debate Bill Nye, a hero of "Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" who wrote this stuff.) As far as "censoring debate" — well, again, he does not have the "rights" that he is assuming. People have Pages, Weblogs, whatever, and do not have to bow to the wishes of evolutionists who want to "set them straight" or fire off ridicule; we are under no obligation to give them a platform. Again, I am amazed that someone like this presents himself as a brilliant but innocent victim when all he does is rail at people. Do not want.
"The lack of faith which Dr. Purdom has in these principles is evident by the fact that she deletes polite and thoughtful responses instead of simply repudiating them. Well, what about 'new information'? Say I have a list of sequences: (1,2) and (3,4). Then I add the new sequence (1,4) to the list -- is this new information? Well, sure! It's new with respect to the previous sequences -- but it's not new, because it's just a simple combination of the old sequences. A molecular geneticist knows this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that Dr. Purdom is using her credibility in the field of biology to deliberately mislead people; and even worse, she does not allow for open dialogue of her own statements. She censors debate about ideas she claims to uphold as truth instead of subjecting them to scrutiny. Is this the way a scientist should act? I dare you to let this comment stand."
Here is a real gem:
I will draw my own conclusions if you fail to respond to my question.
I have "lost debates" on Twitter because I was not even there to answer. In that case and here, they use an argument from silence fallacy. He can draw all the conclusions he wants, but the fact is that I do not want to waste more time on him. Time to wrap this up. This is typical of the kind of thing that creationists deal with all the time. I expect that the full-time creation science ministries have it a thousand times worse than I have, but I still accepted advice to give these vacuous stalkers some attention this time.
Hope my students in "Logic Lessons" as well as other readers were able to get something out of this. It was not difficult for me to refute, so I doubt that others had problems with it.