Posted by:
Raptor Jesus
(
)
Date: October 09, 2015 08:14PM
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-1689435First Continuation Thread
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1689802,1689802#msg-1689802Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2015 08:43PM by Raptor Jesus.