then we agree
At 07:12 PM 04/07/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>I am not arguing for ignorance, just due caution and civil protection.
>
>Rod
>
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > At 03:21 PM 4/7/00 -0400, Rod wrote:
> > >There is also the legal issue that people should be punished for their
> > >behaviour, not for their "genetic predisposition" It is also easy to
> > >imagine all sorts of discrimination by insurance companies, etc.
> >
> > right. That's the trouble with science. It's a good thing in general,
> > something to be encouraged, but can always be used for ill rather than for
> > good. But ignorance can also be used for good or ill.
> >
> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>--
>Rod Hay
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The History of Economic Thought Archive
>http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
>Batoche Books
>http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
>52 Eby Street South
>Kitchener, Ontario
>N2G 3L1
>Canada
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
