OT: Libel

[Guest guest]

I don't know if this is directed at me or not, but there are some

things I want to say. Maybe I can explain a bit. I don't see anything

improperly personal about this at all, at least where I am coming

from, although naturally I cannot speak for what others have said.

But I think it is being mis-characterised here.

I'm absolutely in favour of people having opinions contrary to mine -

so I'd say it is a much greater than " toleration " . I've been at

university doing one degree or another for about 20 years. The whole

point of academia is to make claims and defend them, and it would be

less than no fun if people didn't disagree. It's basically

institutionalised disagreement, and that's where I've chosen to spend

my life. I wonder if it was libelous when I wrote my dissertation

asserting that one of my professor's arguments was incoherent.

However, when someone presents a paper, or directly says that 1 + 1 =

12, or 1 + 1 = elephant - and I think it's about something important,

I'm going to disagree. It's nothing personal, it's about what has

been said, and I don't even see why that has the appearance of being

personal. My issue in this case is with the 1 + 1 = elephant claim

that was made. And sorry, but when something like this comes out of

someone's mouth, I don't respect them for having a differing point of

view. Then when I am telling someone about it, I talk about how they

stood up and said something stupid. He didn't even get to something

arguable or contestable that anyone *could* disagree with - it was

just literal nonsense from the word go. That's what the " stupid "

comments are all about, based on the direct statements made, the

evidence he provided when he spoke.

When someone says something that is just plain fallacious, and then

purports to be an authority, I think it is appropriate and correct and

human to consider what their biases are, including their emotional

biases - just as pro-vax people discount studies done by people who

make money by selling jabs.

And regarding his son, I am very uncomfortable with a person who jumps

up and makes the point that he has an autistic child every time it

suits his purpose the way he does. ly I find this very

exploitative and I'm certain this is because he thinks it makes his

argument stronger (which is just another example of his grossly

inadequate reasoning skills), because after all, if a parent of an

autistic child doesn't want to blame vaccines (and he's a GP too,

important to mention that because he knows some people will be fooled

into thinking he's making some brand of sense because of his job),

then he must be speaking the truth, and not in denial. There's no

other reason for *him* to be interjecting the personal into his

claims. So yes, when someone chooses to make something personal one

of the premises of his argument, it's quite likely to be discussed.

And lastly, I think the whole " toleration " for everyone else's view is

overrated. I think it engenders this politically-correct camaraderie

and false sense of respect and goodwill at the expense of the quest

for good science or what works or rigorous thinking. Someone has just

recently said on the list that they're now scared of chelation because

of some (again erroneous) comments made by people claiming authority.

I've seen it before on this list when there is a disagreement, and I

just really am unwilling to play along with that, I'm truly sorry if

that makes people uncomfortable. I wouldn't hire a physician who felt

very passionately that our children could be cured with lead and

mercury, no matter how great his fervor, and I wouldn't listen to

someone else recommend it without weighing in, even if it does upset

peace and harmony and makes me appear to not be tolerating someone

else's view.

If this physician is really someone who really, really just cares

about whether we are harming our children, it would benefit all of us

a great deal if he would stop speaking in logical fallacies. There is

no lack of toleration for views that are not the same as my own, but I

am rather slavish in that I do insist that people adhere to the basic

dictates of reason, even if others are not as stringent.

I'm glad that you posted what you think. I am in complete, sincere

agreement with you that is important for people to be able to

disagree. I hope you don't decide to leave the group over this, even

though I personally quite understand the annoyance of having to write

posts like these, but like you, I don't want people to think I endorse

what has been said. I don't think anyone needs to be censored -

presumably we're all adult enough to be able to deal with our

emotional reactions to what other people say, and to respond, if we

choose. I do want to say that I think the honest discourse is more

important than the annoyance, at least for me.

>

>

> The whole of this week the general attitude regarding Fitzpatrick has

> greatly bothered me - the name-calling, making reference to his

son, and various

> conspiracies/theories regarding him... Why is it so hard to

tolerate someone

> who has an opposing view without resorting to personal or emotive

comments

> about him? I have found the discussion to be very alienating and

quite painful

> actually.

> Personally I admire him for one thing - for standing up for what he

believes

> in. Maybe, just maybe, he thinks we are genuinely harming our kids

and this

> is a cause that he sees validity in standing up for. ly, I'd

rather see

> someone passionate and active for a cause they believe in than the

sea of

> apathy that I see around me everyday among my peers. I find apathy

so very much

> more harmful (and dangerous) than activism, even if the activism is

> diametrically opposed to my personal view. At least activism

often welcomes

> dicourse and debate and can provoke people to thought. A complete

and utter lack

> of tolerance for views outside of one’s own is, to be very frank,

> proto-fascist.

> I understand that some people here feel very strongly about biomed and

> helping and informing others but please, don’t take the very weak

position of

> making personal attacks and resorting to name calling, etc. I want

to be here to

> help others help their kids, that’s all, and when this happens it

feels that

> if I remain silent then I tacitly endorse the sentiment that is being

> bandied about. I don’t want to have to post posts like this but

I think that I

> have two choices †" either leave the biomed group (something I

don’t want to

> do) or speak up. So there you go, I’m annoyed that I have to

open this

> potential can o' worms but I don’t feel that I can be silent.

> Darla

> PS I think I did, a few years ago refer to him by a not so nice

name in an

> email just in case anyone thinks I’m being self-righteous here.

The slander

> has never gone as far as it has this time, if I recall correctly.

>

[Guest guest]

Amen to that.

And as steph said, he is not just another neurodiverse out there, what

he says carries certain weight unfortunately.

We, including DAN! doctors, can all write hundreds of letters to say

BMJ, and they would not get a second glance from the editor. Yet this

guy writes in again and again, and his comments get published again and

again, and they get read by people like my GP, who forms his opinions

partly on what he reads in BMJ etc etc...

nx

> >

> >

> > The whole of this week the general attitude regarding Fitzpatrick

has

> > greatly bothered me - the name-calling, making reference to his

> son, and various

> > conspiracies/theories regarding him... Why is it so hard to

> tolerate someone

> > who has an opposing view without resorting to personal or emotive

> comments

> > about him? I have found the discussion to be very alienating and

> quite painful

> > actually.

> > Personally I admire him for one thing - for standing up for what he

> believes

> > in. Maybe, just maybe, he thinks we are genuinely harming our kids

> and this

> > is a cause that he sees validity in standing up for. ly, I'd

> rather see

> > someone passionate and active for a cause they believe in than the

> sea of

> > apathy that I see around me everyday among my peers. I find apathy

> so very much

> > more harmful (and dangerous) than activism, even if the activism is

> > diametrically opposed to my personal view. At least activism

> often welcomes

> > dicourse and debate and can provoke people to thought. A complete

> and utter lack

> > of tolerance for views outside of one’s own is, to be very

frank,

> > proto-fascist.

> > I understand that some people here feel very strongly about biomed

and

> > helping and informing others but please, don’t take the very

weak

> position of

> > making personal attacks and resorting to name calling, etc. I want

> to be here to

> > help others help their kids, that’s all, and when this

happens it

> feels that

> > if I remain silent then I tacitly endorse the sentiment that is

being

> > bandied about. I don’t want to have to post posts like

this but

> I think that I

> > have two choices †" either leave the biomed group (something I

> don’t want to

> > do) or speak up. So there you go, I’m annoyed that I have

to

> open this

> > potential can o' worms but I don’t feel that I can be

silent.

> > Darla

> > PS I think I did, a few years ago refer to him by a not so nice

> name in an

> > email just in case anyone thinks I’m being self-righteous

here.

> The slander

> > has never gone as far as it has this time, if I recall correctly.

> >

>