Coffee With Kish: Disenchantment with Apologetics

[Kishkumen]

I doubt DCP was responding to little old me. For one thing, I do not dismiss him as a mere apologist, as my videos clearly show. I would be surprised if he spent any of his good time watching a single video I have posted. If I were he, I doubt I would. If I were he.

[drumdude]

I doubt DCP was responding to little old me. For one thing, I do not dismiss him as a mere apologist, as my videos clearly show. I would be surprised if he spent any of his good time watching a single video I have posted. If I were he, I doubt I would. If I were he.

I don’t know. He just about lost his mind when you criticized him here a couple months back and then he doxxed you on his blog.

[Gadianton]

Suppose that Scientist X

A sly move. In a defense of apologetics, he provides examples of scientists. Because, of course, scientists are just apologists like they are. A hypothetical scientist arguing that nature matters more than nurture isn't necessarily doing apologetics at all. Hopefully, the scientist reviewed the base material and argues nature matters more because the evidence seems to suggest that. An apologist would be born of goodly parents who taught him that nature matters more, and then made sacred covenants and oaths that nature matters more, and then goes out and looks for evidence supporting nature, with no possibility that nurture could be correct. That's positive apologetics. Negative apologetics would argue against nurture, and always find a way to make nurture wrong no matter what, because of the sacred commitment to nature.

[Moksha]

[I don’t know. He just about lost his mind when you criticized him here a couple months back and then he doxxed you on his blog.

He has been doxxing Kish for a long time. I remember when he did that on Liz's blog ten years ago. People do not fully understand the harm in that because it exposes them to a lot of crazy members with Trump follower sensibilities.

[Doctor Scratch]

Suppose that Scientist X

A sly move. In a defense of apologetics, he provides examples of scientists. Because, of course, scientists are just apologists like they are. A hypothetical scientist arguing that nature matters more than nurture isn't necessarily doing apologetics at all. Hopefully, the scientist reviewed the base material and argues nature matters more because the evidence seems to suggest that. An apologist would be born of goodly parents who taught him that nature matters more, and then made sacred covenants and oaths that nature matters more, and then goes out and looks for evidence supporting nature, with no possibility that nurture could be correct. That's positive apologetics. Negative apologetics would argue against nurture, and always find a way to make nurture wrong no matter what, because of the sacred commitment to nature.

Indeed. It seems like he forgot about the far more accurate admissions he made in his FAIR talk, which drum dude helpfully reposted upthread. And, of course, negative apologetics would not only make nurture wrong no matter what, but it would also invent totally phony documents to prove the point, and it would pick fights with teenagers and post the exchanges on SHIELDS so that their private list-serve could engage in "loud laughter." Etc., etc.

[hauslern]

A major effort in discrediting a critic like Fawn Brodie was to point out that other critics have found her writings badly argued in her biography of former US President Thomas Jefferson and his relationship with Sally Hemmings. A major attack on her after this was by Louis Midgley.
http://www.farmsresearch.com/frob/frobv8_2/midgley.htm

Jennifer Wallach has responded with "The Vindication of Fawn Brodie"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25091855?r ... b_contents

On how the DNA issue had changed the mind of one Jefferson scholar Joseph J Ellis
Post-DNA
https://www.studythepast.com/his597/jef ... st_dna.pdf

On whether it was the dna of another Jefferson
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/3 ... GGSLRBV4ZA

From these papers I feel Midgley has failed in his attempt to discredit Brodie. She only fell pregnant when Jefferson was home Neiman
"the new scholarly consensus is that Jefferson and Hemmings were sexual partners" p. 126 Ellis.
Neiman " Serious doubt about the existence and duration of the relationship and about Jefferson's paternity of Heming's sex children can no longer be reasonably sustained" p. 210

[Kishkumen]

A major effort in discrediting a critic like Fawn Brodie was to point out that other critics have found her writings badly argued in her biography of former US President Thomas Jefferson and his relationship with Sally Hemmings. A major attack on her after this was by Louis Midgley.
http://www.farmsresearch.com/frob/frobv8_2/midgley.htm

Jennifer Wallach has responded with "The Vindication of Fawn Brodie"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25091855?r ... b_contents

On how the DNA issue had changed the mind of one Jefferson scholar Joseph J Ellis
Post-DNA
https://www.studythepast.com/his597/jef ... st_dna.pdf

On whether it was the dna of another Jefferson
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/3 ... GGSLRBV4ZA

From these papers I feel Midgley has failed in his attempt to discredit Brodie. She only fell pregnant when Jefferson was home Neiman
"the new scholarly consensus is that Jefferson and Hemmings were sexual partners" p. 126 Ellis.
Neiman " Serious doubt about the existence and duration of the relationship and about Jefferson's paternity of Heming's sex children can no longer be reasonably sustained" p. 210

Thank you for sharing this, Noel! Fawn Brodie was a good biographer, which is not the same thing as being a historian exactly. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[drumdude]

Bumping this to point out an irony - it seems that DCP was fine when his journal published nasty demeaning reviews of critical scholarship, but apparently DCP finds it abhorrent that someone would give a one star review of his film on rotten tomatoes.

If you can’t take the heat, as they say, maybe you should leave the kitchen.