Mike Lorrey writes:
> Only in a debate where the parties have no interest in the outcome. When
> you are betting your life, you sure as hell want to know if the people
> mean what they say, or only mean it to apply to other people, not
> themselves. One indicates a potential altruist who walks the walk that
> their talk describes, the other indicates a closet totalitarian.
> Allowing totalitarians to hide behind the rules of debate is what has
> caused the worst crimes against humanity to occur.
I completely disagree. The rules of debate exist exactly to prevent
the kind of personal attacks which you are supporting here. I can't
believe that you are claiming that attacking the personal character of
your opponent is a better approach than thoughtfully debating his ideas.
I am curious, though. If you did want to defend this position,
wouldn't your most consistent strategy now be to attack my character
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:37 MDT