Honest to God and to Wundt, this is starting to be a series of personal
attacks and not a reasonable discussion.
At 12:04 AM 6/18/99 -0500, Mike Scoles wrote:
>"Linda M. Woolf" wrote:
>
>> When someone discusses and considers the "extermination" of an entire group
>> or genocide and only finds against it because of some utilitarian function
>> the group may serve for you, then yes, I think we can question their
>> ethical views.
>
>Should we dismiss any *logical* argument from such a person? If a racist says
>that 2+2 = 4, should we say, "I've got to question that because you are an
evil
>person."? Russell's counter to Pascal's wager would have merit, even if it
>originated with Hitler. To say otherwise is exactly what characterizes an ad
>hominem argument.
>
>Stephen Black wrote:
>
>> > Pushed to the limit,
>> > this policy would even cause us to refuse to use computers because
>> > they depend on the work of that notorious racist, Shockley, who
>> > invented the transistor.
>
>and Linda responded:
>
>> If Shockey's work was in the area of ethics or race relations, I would be
>> very concerned.
>
>Concerned about what? Using computers? (Stephen's point--not to be confused
>with Steven's Point.)
>
>--
>**********************************************************************
>* Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
>* Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
>* University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
>* Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
>************ http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/mscoles.htm ****************
