Scott attacks Denny's character. He says there is no evidence of Denny's "work ethic and ability" then says that Denny is not just wrong, but also that Denny cares more about his own power then he does about truth.
Any way you slice it those are character attacks.
note that Scott uses the term "raw ability." That means the natural intelligence to do the work. He isn't going after Denny for not being trained, or properly educated for the task. Scott is attacking Denny's intelligence.
Don't be fooled, that is EXACTLY what that is.
now....
Now, Scott is upset because he feel Denny Misrepresented Scott comments. One example Scott gives is below. A is what Scott Said. B is the summery Denny gave.
Scott think Denny misrepresented him. Scott has a point, as Denny certainly over-simplified...
And Scott wrote that *AFTER* he went after Denny for mischaracterizing him.
This is rank hypocrisy.
Before I say more, let's avoid Tu Quoque here by noting that Scott's misrepresentation of Mohler doesn't mean that Scott is wrong about being misrepresented by Denny...
The point here is Scott is selective about when gross oversimplification of someone's work is ok.
Scott insinuates that the only thing @albertmohler
takes from scripture about Justice is the death penalty, but if you mischaracterize Scott, he goes on the war path.
nah bro.
finally If Scott wants to brag about his rigor, and talk about how people can't handle his light work, and can't even deal with his concentrated rigor, he should probably dedicate himself to not making elementary mistakes on twitter while boasting....
For example, perhaps he ought to read the Concept of Mind before misusing the term category mistake.
Calling someone a false teacher is not the type of ontological mistake to which the term "category mistake" refers....
1. A category mistake is a type of ontological error where a thing is described as having a property it cannot possibly have. For example "The number 6 weights 5 pounds" is a category mistake.
"the concept of a triangle is 2 feet tall" is a category mistake...
Debates about if false teachers can preach systemic justice on behalf of others has nothing to do with ontological or semantic categories. Besides, a false teacher can preach systemic justice on behalf of others if he teaches it wrongly, or in a way that goes against scripture...
or if he does so cynically for his own benefit (the way Annanias and Sapphire acted cynically)
But the point here is that you don't get to talk up your rigor and accuracy and then make entry level errors....
Particularly when you try to bully people by looking smart and get things wrong.
Neil Doesn't need to add any premises for his argument to valid.
Encoding Neil's argument symbolically and using S5 this is valid without any additional premises:
1.□(¬p→¬q) 2. □q
:.3. □¬¬p
Further, Neil argued:
1. □(¬p→¬q) 2. □q 3. :. □¬¬p
and under S5 3. entails:
4. □¬ □¬p
So we don't need an account of possible worlds in which Christ is a false prophet as the proposition "Christ is a false prophet" is necessarily false on Neils argument.
Further given
1.□(¬p→¬q) 2. □q
That means:
5. :. □p
And thus under Neils argument necessarily Jesus is a Prophet.
So unless I've encoded the argument wrongly, or misunderstood Neil, it looks to me like Scott is blowing smoke to try to look smart.
Lastly, before Scott attacked Denny there was an update posted on Denny's blog where Denny posted Scotts' opinion about why Scott thought Denny Mischaracterized Scott.
Denny posted, on his own blog Scotts' unedited view of things....and then Scott called Denny dishonest.
So yeah, I have no time for this. posturing as some intellectual heavy weight and trying to bully people by bluffing about concepts and ideas is total garbage.
Scott owes Denny and Neil apologies.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ It says use a dictionary to define communism, but as @realchrisrufo showed in *the next tweet* kids had to simulate a Free Angela Davis rally. She's a communist. It's easy to infer the kids were primed to give a favorable definition of communism...
2/ Greg also ignores that, these *5TH GRADERS* are being taught about *checks notes* Black Communism in a unit where Angela Davis, who once said people in Soviet Gilags deserved it, is painted as nothing more then an academic and activist.
Again, these kids can barely even read.
3/ And we are supposed to pretend there's nothing to see here.
I'm not being a jerk, I'm making my point with a sledgehammer.
Pretending differences between men and women don't exist is utterly absurd, and people keep saying it. This ACLU lawyer quite literally says "Women and girls who are trans are biological women and girls."
1/ Yesterday we found out @ginacarano was fired from Star Wars over Social Media posts
Lots of people talk about cancel culture, but so far no one has given a serious account of exactly what cancel culture is, where it comes from, and how it works
So, Cancel Culture
A Thread🧵
2/ There's a lot of confusion around cancel culture both because cancel culture is a new phenomenon, and because some people have dishonestly and cynically misused the term in order to score political points. So let's try to get clear about EXACTLY what's cancel culture is.
3/ To begin, I need to say something about "free speech."
Free Speech is not *only* a legal principle. It is that, but it isn't *just* that. Free speech is also an enlightenment liberal **VALUE**
Read that last sentence again because it's the beating heart of my thinking here.
The idea is that it doesn't matter what you meant to say, all that matters is if someones feelings were hurt.
This idea from woke academic literature is destroying our ability to communicate; to fight it we must understand it.
Impact not intent
A Thread🧵
2/ The conceptual machinery that created "impact not intent" has 2 parts
1. The collapse of the use/mention distinction
2. The "Death of the Author" thesis that says the person who says/writes something doesn't get to say how it should be interpreted
I'll explain them in turn
3/ I'll explain the use/mention distinction, give an example, then show how "woke" academics attacked it.
The use/mention distinction is simple. Lets use "cheese" as an example.
You can *USE* the word: "where's the CHEESE?"
You can *MENTION* the word: "How is 'CHEESE' spelled"
1/ By focusing on immuteable characteristics (like race or sex) and making someones identity about those things wokeness, critical theory, and critical race theory ends up justifying, defending, and spreading racism and bigotry.
By dividing people into groups based on...
2/ things that are totally outside of someone's control (IE: nobody can select their skin color)
Wokeness/CRT makes things totally outside someone's control the central focus of their identity, even if a person doesn't want their skin color to be the foundation of their identity
3/ For example, I'm Jewish, white, male, and straight. I don't want people to judge my character based on any of those things. I want those things to take a backseat to who I am as an individual.
I want to be judged by what I say and do, not by things I have no control over.
You fully endorse CRT, and defend it regularly, while calling anyone against it "chicken littles."
I just gave you two examples of antisemitism directly from CRT literature.
Here are some examples of antisemitism against me (My mom is Jewish, which makes me a Jew by Halakha)
That doesn't make me right (standpoint is junk) it just means I have skin in the game.
I've never once heard you speak against antisemitism on the left, or in CRT. But I'm consistent @worldviewconvos even blocked me when I called out his confederacy stuff: