From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 16:36:54 MDT
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> John Clark writes
>
> > "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
> >
>>> We can say without drawing much objection that
>>> a member of the KKK is "scum" for the reason that
>>> White Supremacism has been widely discredited by
>>> intelligent thoughtful people with *valid logical
>>> arguments*.
>
> I don't agree with gts here. Whether or not saying
> that a member of the KKK "is scum" draws objections
> or not is not the point. As gts and Harvey have
> explained, there is simply no content to such name
> calling.
Right, there is no content to such name-calling.
Just to be clear, I was not in my message to John
condoning the use of such language. I was merely
explaining why it is that calling KKK members "scum"
does not usually draw much objection from third
party observers. (It seems to me that people here
like John are wanting to justify the use of such
language ("calling a spade a spade") based at least in
part on their observation that hardly anyone would
speak out against the use of such language when
referring to KKK members. I think it's pertinent to
explain *why* it is that few would object.)
The statement itself ("You KKK members are scum") is
not part of a valid logical argument about white
supremicism but we often allow our compadres a little
leeway in this area when discussing and debating such
distasteful and thoroughly discredited ideas and the
people who promulgate them. This does not however make
the statements appropriate or correct.
Strictly speaking such statements are in the worst
case ad hominem and in the best case just plain
uncivil.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 16:46:13 MDT