Arguing With Idiots on the Internet

Another in my occasional series. This one has an interesting twist though. The discussion is below a video on the matter of street preachers. Anyway, the conversation opened with this:

This is a perfectly valid position and one I share. But of course someone, somewhere brings up that awful word ‘appropriate.’

There you go, right on cue. It’s at this point I reiterate that free speech does not need to be appropriate, nor does it have to be polite or inoffensive. Free speech is just that, free. If you put in caveats, then it isn’t free speech.

That was my opening gambit.

Up to a point, this is a fair point – although some places are open to the public, they are private property and you don’t have freedom of speech on private property. However, this one appears not to be the case, so my point stands. Also, my reference to criminal law was because the fuzz had got involved, nothing more. And, preaching the Gospel is not hate speech and it is outrageous that the police have taken it upon themselves to decide that it is. So, I reiterated my point.

The response.

Okay, so he agrees that the concept of hate crime is iniquitous, yet previously seemed to believe that the Gospels might constitute hate crime. But then we get the shift in the argument – now people shouldn’t be forced to listen. But no one is being forced to listen, are they? It’s in a public place. Walk on by.

What we have here is classic intolerance. I don’t much like the buskers I hear singing and playing out of tune, but I don’t think the police should be involved, nor do I think that they should be forced to stop, because one selfish person doesn’t like it and wants the world to bend to his personal preferences. This person fails to see his own intolerance and arrogance that everyone else can plainly see.

This, I think is a fair summation. There are plenty of things that people do that displease others. I don’t like football, but I encounter it every so often. Too bad, I just ignore it.

And there we have it, the strawman. I have never argued that religious belief never causes harm as it has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. I have argued that street preachers are a harmless part of our traditional life, which they are. If you don’t like them, then move on. However, as I can’t be bothered with this kind of stupidity, I called it at this point.

As far as I was concerned, that was it. The bloke wasn’t worth wasting any more time one. However, a couple of days later, someone else waded in and got a similar response.I felt that this nonsense really needed challenging.

The response to this was a fairly tired canard that free speech advocates are used to hearing – the I believe in free speech but variant.

This person doesn’t understand and doesn’t believe in the free speech principle. If you do, you understand the very few limitations and are prepared to defend it for those whose speech you find repugnant.

Indeed, if free speech was dependent on good manners, then there would be a lot less of it. Anyway it then gets interesting as he decides to present evidence that supports his case for mental illness.

I’d have thought it fairly self evident by this time, that I don’t appreciate his concerns. I did, however look at the cited article, which does discuss the concept of religious fervour correlating to mental illness. Despite quoting one example, the author does not conclude that there is an obvious correlation.

As a mental health provider, I don’t believe it’s my job to cast judgment on patients’ religious beliefs. It’s my job to use medical evidence to evaluate and treat mental illness so as to alleviate suffering among my patients. Today, we have some objective medical tests to diagnose mental illness, as in neurosyphilis or B12 deficiency. But we need more to help guide us through the difficult circumstances in which mental health care and religion collide.

So I can only assume that this individual has comprehension difficulties. He quoted an article that simply does not support his case when read properly.

This is the old epigram that I recall from childhood.

Sir, I admit your general rule,
That every poet is a fool,
But you yourself may prove to show it,
That every fool is not a poet.

While some religious people are mentally ill, it doesn’t follow that religious belief is an indicator, because there are plenty of non religious people who are also mentally ill. Anyway, the interesting twist:

It is not often that someone concedes an argument. However, the delicious irony here is too good to ignore. Having conceded, he then doubles down. This despite it being pointed out that there is no evidence to support his case. So what we have here is an article of faith. Belief without evidence. In other words, a classic example of religious fervour.