From: Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (warrl@mail.blarg.net)
Date: Wed Mar 25 1998 - 14:55:13 MST
> From: "Mark D. Fulwiler" <mfulwiler@earthlink.net>
> "Peter C. McCluskey" <pcm@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > I hope my criticism didn't convince you that debating fundamental ideas
> > is futile. Many attempts use futile approaches, such as rephrasing ideas
> > their opponents have already rejected. If you want to alter your opponents
> > beliefs (rather than promote solidarity within your side of the debate, as
> > many arguments seem designed for), you need to understand why they reach
> > different conclusions than you, which requires a genuine interest in how
> > they think.
>
> You make good points, Peter. Rants-although they are fun-rarely convince
> anyone of anything. But a little rightuous anger isn't all bad, is it? I
> love reading some of the arguments of the radical abolitionists of the
> early 1800's. They called slavery evil and slaveholders evil people.
> It's exhilerating to read them. They didn't make utilitarian arguments
> against slavery, but they did have some effect on public opinion. Would
> they have done better with an economic analysis of slavery which would
> have shown that it made the country as a whole and the slaves, but not
> the individual slaveholders, economically worse off?
Why not point out that in the long run it made the individual
slaveholders worse off?
>
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:47 MST