From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 17:22:46 MST
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> >
> > Um, because some of us don't confuse words with violence.
> > Terms like "verbal abuse" beg the question of whether there
> > is such a thing, and I happen to think there is not. If you
> > are harmed by words, that's your problem.
>
> Children can be verbally abused, and even some adults. It takes
> psychological strength not to be harmed by words, and some adults in
> unfortunate situations aren't given the opportunity to accumulate that
> strength.
>
> I reaffirm my own declaration that (a) I cannot be harmed by words, *any*
> words, no matter how constituted and (b) if I can be harmed by words, it's
> my own problem. But that's a declaration that I have to make for myself,
> not a default state of affairs.
All of that is irrelevant to the central question of whether ad
hominem attacks are to be considered a valid part of rational
discourse on this list. The supposed strength or not to resist
being affected by such is irrelevant to whether or not it is
unacceptable.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:28 MST