I was particularly irritated by right-wing Christian Wintery Knight's recent post on Obamacare, in which he repeats various dubious, cherry-picked stats and conclusions from a Hoover Institute guy as evidence that the US system is much better than the NHS. Wintery Knight's posts are generally recycled right-wing dissembling, myths and apologetics. I made a quick first comment on his post on Obamacare and then followed up with various links and stats. Wintery Knight responded to first comment and refused to publish my other comments. Apparently he's got form - even editing people's comments before publishing them.
I am pretty sure that's not what Jesus would do.
The only other experience I have had of having my comments "disappear" was here: Mark Vernon posted on my Radio 3 talk about my Believing Bullshit book, then engaged with me up to the point where I was clearly getting under his skin, at which point my comment "disappeared" leaving Vernon with a condenscending last word.
I take a particularly low view of those who set up blogs to give the appearance that there's a free exchange of ideas going on, when in fact there is deleting or even editing of comments to suit the blogger. Any other examples...?
(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
Comments
I've had a couple of answers that didn't engage with the questions, and a couple telling me not to write again. One of them included a Gospel track which tells the reader "You are debased... You are defiled... You are defiant."
Some bloggers have a code of conduct, which I think is fair enough. Personally, I would delete anything that was truly abusive, but I've never had to to-date. The only comment I've deleted off my blog was spam (1 in 5 years).
As for examples, Sye didn't post a comment I left on his blog once (a long time ago now).
William Lane Craig is very selective about what he posts on his Q&A site. He takes questions rather than criticisms.
Regards, Paul.
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.co.uk/
They have been randomly refusing to post comments - I have yet to rule out incompetence but the end result was the same as censorship and I gave up.
The idea that it was just some sort of glitch that made your comments disappear from Wintery Knight's blog is incredible. This individual has had problems in the past with refusing to post critical comments.
For instance, after your debate with William Lane Craig, Wintery Knight posted a terribly uncharitable and incompetent "review." I left a sharp (but appropriate) comment there about this shameful conduct, and (no surprise) it was never posted. I've heard others say that they've had the same problem.
Also this might be of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRgHQCmbR7U
That's Philipse debating Swinburne. I think this debate is from May this year, so it is different than the one from 2011.
I don't know WK, never seen his blog, but what do you mean by 'right-wing Christian'?
Is it his Christianity that is right-wing (fundamentalist?), or is he right-wing in his political philosophy as well as being an active Christian? (Or both of course).
http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/2010/08/winteryknight-doesnt-love-me/
He is, however, part of a relatively close-knit online community of Christian apologists, ranging from the facile Eric McDonald, who will post his responses to your comments but delete your comments and block further commenting, and Randy Everest, who never allows a comment to post without a reply from him(more focused on hygiene than dialogue). Of course, these practices are by no means limited to the theistic community-certain unmentionables on FreethoughtBlogs being the most obvious example from the skeptical community.
I just practice my right as a consumer and don't traffic sites that engage in this sort of behavior. One very notable, contrary example of a budding apologist who holds an open and engaging forum is Thomas Larson (http://tomlarsen.org/blog/). He has even written a response to one of WK's posts, calling him out for bad argumentation. If any apologist deserves traffic, it's this guy.
*throws 2 cents on digital floor*
And why, exactly, is he justified in doing so?
If WK was a complete and utter arse, what he probably do is, stung by my post above, publish a few such crits on his blog, then come over here pretending to be "anonymous" and pointing the crit comments out, suggest I must have been "insulting", and perhaps adding that (by some mysterious unknown mechanism) he was privy to the knowledge that WK does not like to publish left wing "propaganda" (Guardian articles), thereby trying to make himself look less like that complete arse he really is.
WK does publish critical comments, but only ones he feels can shoot down pretty easily. Others go in the bin, That's intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
But my subsequent blocked comment contained more.
How could you know that?
From my time at WK's blog, I don't think he would bother commenting here on this blog post. You can catch me over at his place under the name, you guessed it, Anonymous, haha. :D I frequent this blog too Stephen. I actually really liked your debate with the one Lane Craig. Good stuff. Keep it up.
The implication being that my post (and presumably all the others then noted by other commentators), must have contained (i) or (ii) (and in which case were therefore not so very unreasonably rejected).
Well the comments of mine were free of (i) and (ii), and clearly so were many of those discussed by others above (in some cases people have even posted up their "awaiting moderation" comments (see the link in my blog post), and it's clear they contain neither (i) or (ii). Rather, they contain arguments that WK can't cope easily with. So he bins them.
Are you denying that?
As the documented examples show, this is not done to erase profanities but to erase signs that people who disagree with him might have had good points.
I tried dealing with that guy once or twice, but to no real avail.
If I wanted the discourse to remain civil, I would be inclined to censor or delete your remarks, Stephen Law.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but, you have called him a "mofo", an "arse", and other such insults.
Your conversation seems more intent on putting him down than engaging in an honest, fair discussion and honestly, it makes you look bad.
You're better than this, and you know it.
Perhaps if your comments are more substantial and academic than name-calling, I would take your side on the matter.
But as of now, you are being a bully, and you ought to change your approach.
You are not denying Wintery Knight deletes and even edits civil but critical comments on his posts, are you? Presumably not. Yet what really provokes your ire is that he is subsequently called an "arse"?
Can I just call you Dr. Law?
Now I know of Wintery Knight's blog, but I don't know him personally.
But I can't verify that he deletes your blog posts. He could, or he could not, I have no idea.
And neither do you, if you are honest about it.
I'd like you to notice how you talked about Mark Vernon- how the scare-quoted insinuation of "he so bad he made my quotes 'disappear'" was responded to with such a positive, genial, unperturbed attitude that truly makes him seem just above all the drama.
If I were to go by this blog post and the responses, Mark Vernon looks like a real stand-up guy, while you are left eating your hat with your insinuation against him proven false.
Now I don't know if you pay attention to how you come across here, but you should because it's important. Perception is reality, they say.
You could continue to take the same bombastic, partisan approach of name-calling, smear-campaigning and blog-warring.
Or you could, you know...just see it for what it is- either WK is censoring you unfairly, or he is censoring you fairly, or perhaps it is a glitch in his blog.
Just because it's the internet, you're going to start a crusade against the guy?
You know it's not worth getting upset over. Try and get in touch with him in private and try and work something out. If he does seem like a tool when you try to make a good-faith attempt to talk with him, you're the good guy in all this.
Everything doesn't have to be such a political crusade, you know.
R.
PS- I'd love to hear your thoughts on the NHS story he brought up.
But hey, choose to disbelieve what I and several others have said continue with the ad hominem's against me, if you like.
Drifting into hyperbole a little bit there, aren't you?
"Arse" seems an appropriate, indeed comparatively mild, label for such a person, I feel. Still get up on your patronizing high horse and parade around a bit more if you like. I can assure that, unlike, WK, I shan't be deleting your comments!
I assume it's always better to keep things positive and bring people together rather than go around calling people arses and cowards. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you think there's a benefit to all this.
But aside from that, I'd just like to say it takes a lot of bravery to not censor opposing viewpoints. I respect that. Though we disagree on how to deal with Wintery Knight, my respect for you grows in this.
You have my apology here if I caused you any discomfort.
Anyway, are you looking to do a serious critique on the position that the current US System is better than the NHS? That's what I'm curious to see.
I don't think the issue of someone systematically censoring and even editing comments on his blog is entirely "silly", is it? Particularly not when that person sets himself up as a moral beacon in a depraved world. Pointing out said person is engaging in such a cowardly and intellectually dishonest strategy is a valuable public service, I would have thought.
Also, I wasn't even attempting a "serious critique of the position" that US system is better than the NHS. I was merely pointing out some of the flaws in WK's argument for the conclusion.
You then give me a little lecture on being "positive and bringing people together"!
This happens so often to me (maybe not to you, since I take it you are a professor. You guys generally do a lot of monologuing) that it's just a part of my day.
If you're ever in my town and happen to deal with the woman taking my orders at Panera Bread, man...
In the grand scheme of things, I don't understand why you can't reach out to WK and work things out privately. Do you think he's not worth dialog because he's a conservative?
PS- The reason I said those things was because of your blog title and post. I felt like those descriptions were true of your blog post.
I mean just looking over at the blog title now: "Wintery Knight - dissembler and coward"
That is hardcore, man! Real gangster stuff! It's like some Batman versus whoever his archenemy is in.
You take an honest look at it and tell me it doesn't come off like a headline from The Sun.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/coward-a-c-grayling-and-chicken-dawkins-flee-debate-with-william-lane-craig/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/uk-telegraph-on-richard-dawkins-cowardly-refusal-to-debate-william-lane-craig/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/video-william-lane-craig-debates-richard-dawkins-at-the-sheldonian-theater-in-oxford/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/cowardly-hedy-fry-backs-away-from-her-challenge-to-debate-pro-lifers/
And yes, my very first encounter resulted in me filleting his argument, followed by large scale editing of the entire exchange, and finally its disappearance.
WK is the poster boy for lying for Jesus, intellectual dishonesty, and the dangers of dogma and religious delusion. His obsessive atheist bashing borders on pathological and yields insight into his motivations. I believe that demonizing atheists is one of his delusion's defense mechanisms. I think his manic apologetics output may be a symptom of faith in crisis.
That thought had occurred to me too.
I'd like to think that's the case though.
Yes. PZ Myers and John Loftus are particularly bad when it comes to this.
I showed why Craig's Kalam doesn't work the way he wants it to, and why his second premise isn't supported. I then made a separate argument for God that evades the issue. Then I went on about my opinion of Craig's arguments in general. Mysteriously, the thread disappeared.
I posted something else about how James Crossley's date of Mark (37-40) is decidedly in the minority, but it never showed up.
The website is an echo chamber for WK and those who share his equally conservative Christian beliefs. He largely doesn't engage with material that disagrees with him, and often resorts to ridicule. See any summary of any Bart Ehrman debate he does.
By the way, I say this as a believing and practicing Roman Catholic.
I too have had a similar experience with Wintery Knight. He selectively posted my comments here:
https://winteryknight.com/2017/06/21/the-seven-fatal-flaws-of-moral-relativism-5/
I even had a student of mine ("tortillaa") post afterwards. That comment got posted, but my repeatedly posted reply did not.
https://jamesbishopblog.com/2018/11/16/apologist-wintery-knight-banned-me-from-his-facebook-page-why-his-behaviour-should-be-a-lesson-for-christian-apologists/