From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 08:57:08 MDT
Mike Lorrey writes
> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > John Clark writes
> >
> > > "gts" wrote
> > >
> > > > 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.
One give-away clue is that the definition "scum"
makes utterly no contribution to the discussion.
I then went on:
> > 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.
and Mike answers
> Describing such by their right names is not 'an emotional outburst'.
Right names? "Scum"? Be serious.
> What is wrong with name calling anyways? My name is Mike.
> You call me Mike, you are name calling.
You are using a tangential meaning of the terms employed,
and not even doing a very good job. Usually when people
stoop to this, it is done skillfully. (I think that you
don't have much practice in this sort of deception.)
> 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."
They might indeed! I've even gone so far as to say that
Hitler and Stalin might be great people to share a jail
cell with for a year.
> Does anybody claim that Jeff Dahmer had any socially
> redeeming qualities?
Who knows? You'd have to know him a lot better than anyone
here does. Would he keep his word on small matters in day
to day life? Would he be coarse and unpleasant? Would he
readily agree to do his part of the family (or prison) tasks?
Would he be charitable towards others in a small working
groups, (provided that they didn't appear to tasty and that
being in private with them was not possible)?
> That Kim Jong Il is just a misunderstood son of an overachieving
> father? That Saddam is just the obvious result of an abusive childhood?
The first appears to be a megalomaniac (as probably is/was the second).
The second is known to be a mass murderer. But it would be rather
childish to describe either as "scum", "naughty-naughties", or dumb bells.
> 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.
Yes, and vocabulary exists to describe them meaningfully.
> 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.
I'd agree to that, though we might not exactly agree who
fits this description. My hunch is that you might be too
ready to apply this description when I'd merely concede
that the person in question was not stupid at all, but had
extremely different values or intuitions about human nature.
> 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 describes the duck.
Yep. But we should really ask ourselves, before indulging in
something that smacks of name-calling, just what the content
of the abusing term really is. "Scum" or "asshole" or "jackass"
rarely, very rarely, cut it.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 09:04:20 MDT