From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 00:20:14 MDT
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> John Clark writes
>
> > "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
> >
> > > The KKK calls blacks and Jews scum, and they are no more correct
> than you
> > > are in calling the KKK scum.
> >
> > If I were to say "Hey gts, what do you think about the KKK?" is it
> really
> > inconceivable that you would reply "They're scum"; and should I
> think less
> > of you if you did? Personally I feel it is perfectly correct, they
> are scum.
>
> I find such emotional outbursts understandable,
> but inaccurate. The name-calling does nothing more
> than connote the emotional state of the speaker. Are
> we to suppose that there is such a thing as "emotional
> correctness"? From many others' posts on this list, I
> think that about sizes it up.
Describing such by their right names is not 'an emotional outburst'.
What is wrong with name calling anyways? My name is Mike. You call me
Mike, you are name calling. I doubt very much that anybody on this list
would ever say "David Duke is an okay fellow to hang out with, it is
just his opinions I despise." Does anybody claim that Jeff Dahmer had
any socially redeeming qualities? That Kim Jong Il is just a
misunderstood son of an overachieving father? That Saddam is just the
obvious result of an abusive childhood?
While most people of many different opinions are generally of
benevolent intent toward their fellow man, even those I disagree with,
there are people who are seriously deficient in various qualities that
make one a rational, compassionate, logical, non-evil human being.
Similarly, just as there are individuals who are inherently evil, there
are also individuals who are, despite being entirely benevolent of
intent, entirely dingbats in their thought processes toward applying
such intents to reality, or in perceiving the reality around them.
>
> One has to be "emotionally correct" when denouncing
> racism, Communism, or Hitler, else in some quarters
> it's thought that one is pushing a wicked agenda of
> some kind, and that probably one secretly is a
> fascist, commie, or racist.
>
> That Joseph Stalin was a murdering, vicious dictator
> of the Soviet Union is pretty close to being fact.
> But to say that he was filthy animal, or a scumbag,
> is nothing more than name calling, and I, for one,
> won't applaud it.
>
If the name does not accurately reflect the individual being described,
it is rightly improper. But if it accurately describes the individual,
then the quack desribes the duck.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 00:27:14 MDT