MikeBGene@aol.com writes
in message <5f.2db3f4c.2609ace7@aol.com>:
>
> >What? If you only saw the first paragraph, I can somewhat
> >understand how you could say that, but the second paragraph is
> >clear that the solution to parents who teach their children to
> >doubt Darwinism is not quarantine of the parents but "deprogramming"
> >of the children.
>
> Don't agree. "Deprogramming" children (wasn't this common with
> communists?) is indeed quarantine-in-action. An intimate part
> of of the parent-child relationship is to pass on one's traditions
> and beliefs. To "deprogram" is to disrupt this process and thus
> quarantine the parent's beliefs.
That's a hell of a stretch and certainly not the normal use of
the word quarantine. By that definition, any biology teacher
may be quarantining the parents of any student he teaches.
So now, if I manage to change the mind of an ardent creationist,
I am quarantining his parents? If I play a part in altering
your thinking beyond what you were taught as a child, does that
mean I am quarantining your parents?
<snip>
> >"At the very least" may sound ominous but
> > the first paragraph is also quite clear that quarantine is only
> >necessitated, in Dennett's view, if those to be quarantined
> >perceive opposing views as an "intolerable threat" and will
> >commit violence to eliminate them (i.e., rather than peacefully
> >coexist).
>
> I think Dennett views the mere existence of religious fundamentalism
> as an intolerable threat.
Is that your opinion or your interpretation of the quote?
If the latter, you've got that backwards. The "intolerable
threat" is the view of "many of them", not the view of Dennett.
> Dennett says nothing about committing violence and we have no
> idea how he interprets "peaceful."
Actually we have a pretty good idea of what he means by "peaceful
coexist" because he contrasts it with "suffering", "confrontation",
and "pain and damage". That is clearly violence of some sort.
<snip>
> >Note the word "peacefully", please. I wholeheartedly endorse
> >quarantining any faction or group that can not peacefully
> >resolve its differences with society. Terrorism should never
> >be tolerated.
>
> Let's explore this. If acts of terrorism are committed, we put the
> terrorists in jail. This is already done and since Dennett is talking
> about what needs to be done, I doubt he simply means this.
I don't see that Dennett is talking about what needs to be
done. Much of both paragraphs read as warnings to religious
activists about the inevitable result if they are unable
to peacefully let go of the "beloved features of [their] heritage".
If I perceive an "intolerable threat" within society and I elect
to take a non-peaceful solution to eliminating it, why in the
world do you I think I wouldn't eventually end up isolated
from society (if unsuccessful)? This is Dennett's point.
You can not redefine "non-peaceful" in such a way that it does
not entail an eventual, inevitable collision with the laws of
society. Therefore, Dennett's quarantine is probably jail or
some other form of social punishment.
<snip invalid conclusions>
But let's not get too far off the subject: Does Dennett recommend
quarantining parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism?
Obviously not unless we stretch the meaning of quarantine beyond
the breaking point. Further, since the term quarantine appears
close to the paragraph that addresses parental behavior, the
simplest explanation by far is that Dembski made a mistake.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 14:27:07 EST