Journalists writing about Peter Singer <> not understanding Peter Singer: name a more iconic duo.
I remember reading an article some years back that was written by a wheelchair-bound woman, who wrote about how she was initially repulsed by Singer's (alleged) belief that she would be better off dead, but then she spent several days with him and found him to be a caring and compassionate person, even though he believes some weird things like that she would be better off dead. I don't know how she spent several days with Singer and still managed to misunderstand him this badly.
See your whole first point here is that people can make patently and horrifically insane statements, and then claim that anyone who doesn't argue through the whole of morality to refute them is somehow "poisoning the well" or "holds no regard to the truth". Sure, if you want to debate all topics that's fine, I suppose, but you can also just punch the nazi instead of doing a three hour podcast with them first.
What are you talking about? The point of paragraph 1 is that Robinson misleads people and then scoffs. This is not a good way to do philosophy. Lots of things will sound weird when taken out of context, and using them to label philosophers evil, before lying about what they say is not productive.
Journalists writing about Peter Singer <> not understanding Peter Singer: name a more iconic duo.
I remember reading an article some years back that was written by a wheelchair-bound woman, who wrote about how she was initially repulsed by Singer's (alleged) belief that she would be better off dead, but then she spent several days with him and found him to be a caring and compassionate person, even though he believes some weird things like that she would be better off dead. I don't know how she spent several days with Singer and still managed to misunderstand him this badly.
See your whole first point here is that people can make patently and horrifically insane statements, and then claim that anyone who doesn't argue through the whole of morality to refute them is somehow "poisoning the well" or "holds no regard to the truth". Sure, if you want to debate all topics that's fine, I suppose, but you can also just punch the nazi instead of doing a three hour podcast with them first.
What are you talking about? The point of paragraph 1 is that Robinson misleads people and then scoffs. This is not a good way to do philosophy. Lots of things will sound weird when taken out of context, and using them to label philosophers evil, before lying about what they say is not productive.