Hi Y'all,
Louis_Schmier wrote:
> There is a significant difference; as Michael playing the devil's advocate
> or were his comments a true reflection and expression of his views. If
> they were the latter, I would suggest discussing them rather than lashing
> out at them. People listen more closely to a quiet voice than a rancorous
> shout.
>
I can't imagine that if I made statements such as (and I have trouble even
using them as examples!) in the guise of devil's advocate:
"Is it true that Blacks are lazy and have a genetic flaw that leads them to be
criminals?"
or, "Is it true that women really enjoy being raped?"
or, "Is it true that homosexuals have a tendency to molest children?"
on a list of academically trained psychologists, that folks would tend to
listen with a quiet voice as opposed to calling me to the carpet for my
offensive comments.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the current fracas, I did not think he initially endorsed the idea that
> Israelis were keeping the bloodlines pure. He related that a student had
> said this in class.
And somehow putting the "a student asked me in class today" in front of the
posts doesn't help (a common occurrence in Michael's posts). First, I think
students know better and second, I would assume the professor would already
know how to address such misinformation if genuinely asked in class.
The devil's advocate or the "student asked me" rationales seem to me to be
simply an excuse for offensive comments.
I've enjoyed a number of Michael's posts in the past. The one's in question
however, I find offensive.
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
