My primary interest has been to define what it is that I find offensive about the Martha Nussbaum article that was posted on here. I have tried to concentrate on that and have not tried to be judgemental about individual or collective opinions of members of silk list.
For that reason I am making a separate post about the comment below: On Sunday 20 May 2007 10:30 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > now if you not only noisily worship stones, phallic symbols etc, but > also support violence against those who do not, and want to rewrite > textbooks to include myths, then you could feel offended by the article. > but in that case i can't say the article should not have been posted to > this list. This comment says that it is justifiable to post Martha Nussbaum's article on this list on condition that there exists someone on the list (as defined by the use of the word "you" in the post above) who will "not only noisily worship stones, phallic symbols etc, but also support violence against those who do not" I see this as an ad hominem against unnamed members of this list - it could possibly be me. The article has been posted here because someone on silk list supports violence against someone else. I would like to ask the basis of this accusation, and what evidence is there to suggest that I, or anyone else on silk list supports violence against those who do not worship "noisily worship stones, phallic symbols etc" Otherwise it is an ad hominem, and should be treated as such. shiv
