Medved did not engage in free debate. He was more interested in grandstanding and posturing than actual debate. Countless critiques and corrections of his work have been offered and ignored, dating back to (at least) 1995. Critics were "oppressors" and "censors," and the substance of the objections were almost uniformly disregarded.
The fact that one has freedom to express their views is not connected to the believability or acceptance of those ideas.
I agree.
But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed. Even ideas rejected as foolish and silly considering their "obvious" disharmony with observation, e.g. the sun does move and the earth doesn't, after quite a long period of rejection and ridicule may ultimately turn out to be the "truth". In any case I do not have to espouse any particular theory in order to support its expression.
Here is where we diverge. I would amend your statement this way: "But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed supported, and defended." The mere expression of an idea is not enough. I submit that refrigerators work because tiny leprechauns run about the shelves waving hand-held fans at the food. They get their energy by drinking milk straight from the bottle, which is why I sometimes find empty milk cartons in the morning.
Silly and harmless, of course. But if I persisted in posting that theory over the course of a decade or so, refusing to provide any evidence in support of the theory, paying no heed to any evidence to the contrary, and refusing to alter the substance of that idea in any meaningful way, then one might rightly begin to suspect there was a pathology at work.
But enough about dear departed Ted. Your larger implication, that I seek to prevent the free expression of ideas, is nonsense. I would expect, however, that an idea stand up to fairly rigorous scrutiny or else be discarded. I come up with some pretty wacky thoughts in the course of a day. Some of 'em even work; the rest are tossed back. If you have a theory that fits the facts as well or better, throw it on the table, let's give it a once-over and beat it as brutally as we have the theory of evolution.
Whether you seek to prevent the free expression is something I cannot determine. Only you can determine that. What I can say is that the effect of banning someone for his ideas is to engage in the suppression of free expression.
I was going to present medved's last post in order to show you that he was engaged in discussion of something other than his pet theories. The thread however, has been pulled. Once it was moved to the back room I refused to engage in the discussion because the premise there is to engage in uncivil discourse. The results are now obvious. PH got what he sought.
Well, it was a fun ride and I made a LOT of great friends on Free Republic... including one who came to my wedding. But nothing lasts forever, and maybe in a way it's a *good* thing, 'cuz there's no convincing some people that no increase in power makes that power any more pure. JimRob has drummed me out of Free Republic. Here's the reason he put on the screen that popped up on my end: Your posting privilege has been revoked. Reason: Democrat Now, I'm not a Democrat. Haven't been one since 1994 when I changed to Republican, and haven't changed that (yet). |