I am not on Trial, even if you wish I were. You are not my Prosecutor

Here is a note on the rules of debate, prompted by the high-handed, self-righteous and overbearing tone of a number of people currently commenting on several topics here.  I doubt they will recognise themselves, as fanatics seldom know that they are fanatics,  but I hope they do. It was also specifically addressed to a contributor on the latest 'MMR' thread.

 

A Mr 'Alexander Search' writes : 'You challenged someone on Twitter twice to provide evidence that there were any deaths caused by the MMR scandal. That evidence was provided and you've refused to reply. Why?'

Well, I haven't  'refused' to reply.  I may not have noticed the question, or statement, involved. I don't spend all my life on Twitter, to put it mildly, and I'm often puzzled by its workings. I post many comments there, and some produce replies, while others don't, Often it is hard to tell which have, and which haven't. Sometimes long daisy-chains form, which are difficult to follow.

Anyway,   I've seen no such evidence.

The question I asked was in fact specific. Several people were claiming on Twitter that the current outbreak of measles, which they style an epidemic, had led to deaths. I simply asked when and where these deaths had taken place, as I am not aware of them (though I have seen some press reports suggesting that such deaths are likely . I wonder if my critics think such reports are 'irresponsible' or 'alarmist').

As I make plain in my original essay on the MMR, I am well aware of deaths from measles, during past outbreaks in Dublin and the Netherlands, and of one some years ago in England (I was unable to obtain details of this case from the authorities, who said that 'patient confidentiality' prevented them from divulging details, though I never sought to identify the person). If confidentiality is that strict, how were they able to discuss the matter publicly at all?

Because of the refusal of the authorities to reveal details, it is impossible to know if this death was that of a normally healthy person, or of someone already ill; or if there were any other special circumstances.  These may have been very important. Why can't we know?

I object to Mr Search's prosecutorial tone, and only answer his aggressive question because it is important to establish the truth. I am not on trial (though many of my critics plainly wish I were), and he is not in a position to demand answers from me in this fashion.

My reason for declining to engage in exchanges with some people on some subjects is that , while I am indeed happy to debate with anyone who is serious about debating, I see little point in debating with those who enter discussions by expressing open contempt for me and my views, or by acting like public prosecutors in a show trial.

A certain willingness to believe it possible that you may be mistaken, a willingness to learn from an opponent, and a generosity of spirit towards that opponent,  are essential for any serious debate.

Where these things are lacking, it is generally faith that is at issue, not knowledge or understanding. But it is also a special kind of secular faith, whose adherents don't even recognise that it *is* faith. Those afflicted often show this by acting and writing as if their opinions are facts.

 It's perfectly possible to discuss faith with people who understand that this is what they are expressing, and that others may not necessarily share it. But it is not possible to do so with those who believe that those who don't share their own certainties are contemptible fools.

Facts and logic are useless weapons against  such (often false) certainties. So contributors here who want responses from me should bear in mind that the more scornful,  lofty and prosecutorial they are, the less likely I am to bother with them. 

Remember, I have actually changed my mind on substantial matters. I know how it's done and (even more important) how it's not done, and also how it's avoided. It is a joy to argue with thise who are mature enough to change their minds. It is a tedious, unfulfilling chore to argue with those mental  adolescents (of any age) who are not really interested in any mind but their own.