He was also clearly a moralist.

He also clearly changed the Modern World as we knew it because of his ideas. Not because of his affairs.

We were and still are enthralled by his words and his writings. Because of the ideas.

It would be childish and silly to dismiss them simply because he had personal, moral failings.

I am confused as to the idea of, "We don't like person X, therefore, we don't have to listen to person X. And everyone does this, so it's ok."

If you don't agree with someone, why not prove them wrong? Or at least state that you're not swayed by the evidence?

But this "Person X talks about morality, and is immoral therefore dismissible" is a fallacy just for the example I've given above.

And I already get that Dr. King and Michael Shermer are very different people. But this is about ideas verses personal morality. Michael Shermer won't be remembered because he's immoral. He will be forgotten because his ideas aren't very good. Just as Dr. King isn't remembered for all the affairs he had, he is immortal because of his ideas.

ETA:

Original Thread
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1689435,1689435#msg-1689435

First Continuation Thread
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1689802,1689802#msg-1689802



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2015 08:43PM by Raptor Jesus.

If Martin Luther King were giving advice on marriage, I would take with a heap of salt. Since no one is perfect,I would listen to him on other subjects and evaluate what he had to say. Shermer did a bit more than have affairs,he got women blind drunk in order to have sex with them. That is rapenor close to it. Stil, that doesnt mean everything he says is suspect,but I sure would take his moralizing with a lot of skeptism.

The quote below was posted on the previous thread, but it deserved more notice.

From Darkfem:

"Most psychologically mature people understand the distinction between idealization and reality. We have a human need to admire and idealize others, but when they disappoint us, as they inevitably do because they are human, too, we should learn how to cope with disappointment and still acknowledge what these flawed individuals can teach us.

Because we are all flawed, and yet we all have potential to contribute something good to this planet before we kick. That's part of what makes humans interesting.

Buddha, for example, apparently abandoned his wife and child to set out on his path toward enlightenment. That's a pretty sucky thing to do. And yet, if we simply dismiss all morally flawed humans, that is a childish and defensive reaction. At the same time, this does not mean we shouldn't have a moral compass and sense of ethical responsibility. But that ethical code does not need to be predicated on false notions of human perfection."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1689802,1690282#msg-1690282

You know, if you want, you can portray the United States of America as a very, very bad place. If you want to, you can trace this 'badness' all the way back to the founding. There are oodles of events that "prove" that from it's inception, America has been nothing but bad!

But while it takes a bit more work, The United States of America can be portrayed as a great country. Personally, that's how I like to think of it, but I have to ignore a lot of ... stuff.

Anyway, I get what you're saying ... I think.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, if you want, you can portray the United
> States of America as a very, very bad place. If
> you want to, you can trace this 'badness' all the
> way back to the founding. There are oodles of
> events that "prove" that from it's inception,
> America has been nothing but bad!
>
> But while it takes a bit more work, The United
> States of America can be portrayed as a great
> country. Personally, that's how I like to think
> of it, but I have to ignore a lot of ... stuff.
>
> Anyway, I get what you're saying ... I think.

This is my perspective as well...

Reading factual history can be deeply disturbing (more often than not, most especially if it is history that has some personal significance to the person reading it)...

...and I also support the portrayal of the United States as a great country.

In my school district, "real" history began in the fourth grade, but it was (of course) history geared to a fourth-graders development level and maturity.

Reading that "same" history as an adult is an entirely different thing...especially when you, as an adult, begin to understand the complexity of the character of each of the "historic figures" involved.

Heroes may well be heroes in one, public, aspect of their lives...and something else entirely in their private lives.

This is part of what being an adult means: being able to comprehend that BOTH "sides" of that person are "true"---and that one "side" does not (necessarily) negate the other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2015 09:03PM by tevai.

Mormons like to apply this kind of thinking to JS. It works for them.

Because his prophecies did not come true.

He is a conman because he preyed on people using his stature as a prophet for monetary gain.

He is a predator for threatening girls and women until they slept with him.

His writings falter because we can deconstruct them and show they aren't what they claim to be.

We don't have to use logical fallacies to discredit Joseph Smith, and we aren't shielding him like Mormons do when they expect critics to prove their assertions.

We have evidence that Joseph was a fraud. And Mormons don't have evidence to prove he was a prophet.

I disagree. Shermer's ideas reflect the reality. He is a good skeptical mind pioneer.
Please share some mediocre ideas of Shermer so we can be enlightened.

It is not at all fair to compare him with Dr.King.

I'll share mediocre ideas if you want to share how he is a "good skeptical mind pioneer."

It would be huge waste of time.
If you didn't read & watch his presentations by now.......

With all the things he's said that other people have before him. And all the things he's claimed, that he hasn't proved.

And by any chance if you did one of them and you didn't like it please share with me, because I've never seen this man talk or present nonsense, ever.....

Please feel free to include other gays of his gang, like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, Pen Jilette, James Randi etc......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2015 09:28PM by quinlansolo.

Most of us humans like to fuck, is there a big mystery about it?
MLK's, JFK's images won't be tarnished because they liked to fuck.

actually you are embarassing, Harris is nowhere close to be islamophobic. Listen to him instead of listening Jaskasses like Ben Affleck.
Sam harris is one of the brightest mind of this country.

I have listened to him and read him,thank you, and I stand by what I said. As for Ben Affleck, I have no idea what he thinks of Harris because I do not follow him or particularly care about his opinion.If Harris is one of the brightest voices in our country,we are in real trouble

He still is the guy who had the most powerful;
"I have a Dream" speech.......

Bill Maher is on HBO, are you watching Him?

I used to watch him and agreed with a lot of his views,but got tired of his smary sense of superiority. I dont get HBO any more because I got tired of paying for channels I rarely watched and the nonsense many of them were brodcasting.

Shermer is a Libertarian. I personally do not find that very rational. Dawkins says stupid things all the time-the latest being his attacks onbthe kid who built a clock and got arrested.Harris is so Islamophobic that it is embarrassing.

Nobody likes a hypocrite. Especially one like Joseph Smith who profited lavishly from his hypocrisy for decades, and who compulsively manipulated situations and exploited people for his own selfish gain.

The point here seems to be a simple one: that we needn't dismiss out of hand the insights of a morally flawed individual, simply because they are flawed.

In other words, Ghandi was a dick in many ways. But he still offered us a useful model for peaceful resistance.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, Ghandi was a dick in many ways.
> But he still offered us a useful model for
> peaceful resistance.

Yes...this is it exactly.

No one is all good or all bad. Even Hitler loved his mother and his dog, but that doesnt make up for his atrocities. I know that is an extreme case,but we should evaluate people on the good and bad and evaluate what they say on its merit. However, I will always be more skeptical of people who have shown grave failings or have been caught lying.

For what it is worth: None of his children every married (the last I heard). And what of the sorrow (and embarrassment) he caused his wife? I wonder if that had anything to do with Martin's neglect of them, for "the cause".

Maybe his penance was his 'shedding blood' (when shot), similar to LDS Brigham Young doctrine of the need to shed blood if want to be forgiven?

Both of the sons are married — MLK III for almost 10 years in fact. The oldest daughter died several years ago.

I haven't read the other threads, so maybe I'm out of turn, but it seems that we should distinguish between judging ideas and judging people.

Ideas should be judged independently of the person who had them (or just made them famous). People, if they should be judged at all, should be judged more for the entirety of their words and actions.

The fact that King was unfaithful to his family doesn't invalidate the ideas (ideals) he taught.

Put another way, "do what I say not what I do" is a clear sign of an obnoxious person and a hypocrite. It doesn't necessarily follow that we shouldn't still do what they say. (And this phrase doesn't perfectly apply to King's infidelity, since he is not known primarily for his teachings on the family.)

I think we should add a few snippets by some who do not consider the doctor a god-man. Remember... a Mormon prophet and a director of the FBI agreed with them.

https://mindspaceapocalypse.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/40-reasons-to-hate-mlk-by-joe-cortina-some-info-on-the-real-mlk/

Skip the photos at the top which were inserted by a racist and begin with the text below that.

I believe that you will find that MKL did not forceably interfere AKA coerce his sex partners into participation.

I do not condone his actions but unlike J jr. he did not, to my knowledge, psychologically force women to have sexual intercourse with him.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong

Having affairs is immoral, but it is nothing compared to rape, which is what Shermer has been accused of. So that to me is a major difference. A rapist's ideas I would throw out entirely, not necessarily because their ideas would not be sound but because I wouldn't want to support their work in any way. An unfaithful spouse? Not right, but also not my business.

The main thing, too, is that MLK's ideas weren't about marriage. If you claim to be an authority on marriage or a relationship counselor, and I find out you're a cheater, then your ideas are no longer valid. But Dr. King spoke very little about marriage or interpersonal relationships.