But as you well know there have been attacks on free speech and outright lies from corrupted disciplines in academia over the Cass report (which eviscerated your own views on gender medicine), so what exactly are you trying to attempt here?
Mehta dismisses a book without having readi it. Arth dismisses Boghossian because he coauthored a chapter of the book that neither he nor Mehta has read. This is the state of skepticism in 2025.
Why does he need to be impartial? Isn't the more relevant question whether or not he's right?
The book hasn't been released, so of course he hasn't read it. He's reasonably critiquing priorities, and the pseudo-scholarship underlying some of the claims that some of these authors have made. This is all well within the standard of conduct for critical thinkers. We are not obligated to blind ourselves to motivation or past performance.
Actually, it is just the ad hominem fallacy. It used to be that you'd get called out for it. But you're right that it is now standard conduct—but not of critical thinkers, but rather of those who have forgotten what that means.
No, that's just incorrect. The ad hominem fallacy is committed when some person A asserts a proposition (ie, a claim of fact) and that proposition is rejected (or, for that matter, accepted) on the basis of some real or alleged character trait of A.
This:
www.nbcnews.com
www.voanews.com
It's even worth than that.
And this
www.militarytimes.com
Actually I dismiss Boghossian because he is a long term dickhead, scientific hoaxer, and associate of some extremely toxic people. But it's cute that you think there was just one reason.
Um, actually it's the genetic fallacy. I guess this is the standard of skepticism these days.
Lol. Keep telling yourself that.
How about assuming someone is acting in bad faith without even knowing what their have to say?
Yep. I also know that Lawrence Krauss submitted a note-in-proof to the publisher explaining that, although I haven't heard whether the publisher agreed to include it in the book.
Too bad for you that you prefer to ignore people you don't like, rather than listen to their arguments (even when they are just moderating a discussion and not making arguments themselves). But I get it: it's more comfortable.
No response @Ziggurat ???And this
West Point shuts down clubs for minorities, women amid DEI purge
The U.S. Military Academy has disbanded a dozen West Point cadet clubs centered on ethnicity, gender, race and sexuality.
So i ask again, what is so wrong with celebrating and recognizing our nation's cultural and ethnic diversity???
The only reason for the military to give ethnic affinity groups their own clubs is if you're going to field ethnic affinity formations.
And what about federal agencies no longer honoring or celebrating Black History month, Holocaust Remembrance Day, St Patricks Day, Columbus Day? Why spit on our beautiful diversity?