LaVallette’s thread of substantiation (or lack thereof)

There is a quote by Popper that I’m quite fond of using that illustrates my utilitarian position on liberty in discussion.

“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” – Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies.

Taken to inform my comments policy, the implication is that freedom of speech isn’t an absolute, that tolerance of intolerance will lead to the destruction of tolerant and open discussion. Such intolerance of open discussion includes spam, trolling and general abuse, and in as far as it is disruptive, lying, red herrings, disinformation and intellectual dishonesty in general.

A recent participant in discussion, “LaVallette”, in addition to characterising my criticism of some of his (rather vapid) points as some kind of intolerance to different opinion, making childish remarks like “My My My, we are so so clever and intellectual” and my personal favourite “So pick up your ball and go home where mummy will protect you. Byeeeeeeeeee!!!“, “LaVallette” has accused me of being anti-Catholic simply through bare assertion.

Now, I have banned several participants for behaviour not as poor as this and if they are reading this and feeling a little ticked off, well I can understand that and yes I am giving “LaVallette” special treatment. This is because I have chosen him, on somewhat of a whim, to be a guinea pig of sorts.

“LaVallette” claims he is looking for robust debate, specifically ” I will find somewhere else where robust debate is appreciated.” Well here is some robust debate for him.

He has alleged that I am anti-Catholic, without a shred of evidence, so given this slur, it’s not at all unfair that I expect him to make an effort to prove it, or to show some intellectual honesty and retract.

He’s set himself a hard task though, considering that in the post that provoked this allegation, I;

1) Concede that while the issue of corpse veneration is a bit weird, that ultimately it’s not an important issue for non-Catholics and that nobody is getting hurt by it;

2) Pondered if secularists dwelling on the perceived weirdness are doing so out of ressentiment and not focusing on more important and more difficult issues (a criticism of atheists and other non-Catholics who have been mocking the veneration of corpses of late). This was the central point of my post, and quite clearly not anti-Catholic.

3) Expressed concern that the philosophy of theocratic entitlement welcoming the largesse of the state (particularly the notion of “Normative Democracy” championed by George Pell) could backfire on Catholics and see a return to the bad old days when being Catholic in Australia necessarily meant being discriminated against (given that not all of the norms of Catholicism are norms shared by the greater populace, nor greater Christendom).

4) Acknowledged that there is greater diversity in Catholicism, and that the views held by Pell et. al. that I criticised, weren’t necessarily held by all Catholics.

5) Pointed out that I assumed that Catholic High Court judges involved in the assessment of a writ, weren’t opposing it because of their Catholicism, but rather either due to pragmatic concerns (upon which the writ was eventually rejected) or in the case of one judge, political bias (as shown by the importance she placed on the political nature of the complaint, yet ignoring the political nature of that which the complaint was levelled against).

But, just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean that “LaVallette” isn’t obligated to back up allegations made. Defamation is by definition, at least in Australia, harmful slurs that are made without due care to the truth. You don’t get much more serious than an allegation of anti-Catholicism, nor does blind assertion show any care for the truth.

But rather than focus on “LaVallette’s” defamation of my person, I just want to see this as an intellectual exercise. LaVallette wants it robust, so I issue the quite reasonable challenge that the allegation against me is substantiated, or that it is withdraw in the spirit of intellectual honesty (and not just so the challenge goes away).

I’m setting a deadline, not out of spite (indeed, I am being charitible by allowing this to continue) but because of my ability to accomodate “LaVallette’s” intolerance of my criticisms (as clearly evidenced by the spittle flecked invective). Popper, in following up on the above quote, stated that suppression wasn’t wise if such intolerance could be countered with rational argument.

I’m only willing to use rational argument with “LaVallette” up until Friday, after which I will be using rational argument on topics of importance. This is still, i think, very charitible considering “LaVallette’s” behaviour and if you recall how “Corey’s Thread of Doom” turned out, if reasonable, you will thank me for putting the end in sight already.

So if our latest troll here hasn’t risen to the challenge and shown us just how intellectually robust they are, then they will get banned like the rest of the trolls. Not that further abusive behaviour won’t attract a ban after that.

Oh, and “LaVallette”, don’t go fouling up the comments threads on other posts with your childish personal attacks. That’s what this thread is for.

Now have at me, “LaVallette”. You fight for the dignity of your fellow trolls on the Australian blogosphere!

~ Bruce

P.S. – Others who want to help “LaVallette” out in accusing me of anti-Catholicism, you have until Friday as well, unless you have already been banned for similar sillyness.