Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site convex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!holt From: holt@convex.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: fat at the recent L.A. Con II Message-ID: <34900032@convex.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 16:26:00 EDT Article-I.D.: convex.34900032 Posted: Mon Sep 24 16:26:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:30:47 EDT References: <1039@shark.UUCP> Lines: 26 Nf-ID: #R:shark:-103900:convex:34900032:000:1133 Nf-From: convex!holt Sep 24 15:26:00 1984 > /* Written 6:27 pm Sep 21, 1984 by brl-tgr!wmartin in convex:net.flame */ > The only valuable part of a human being is the brain. Your attitude toward > another human should be based ONLY on the quality of their brain, and how > it is used. > > Will Martin This is just as bigoted as saying that "the only valuable part of a human being is the body." Let's face it, a human being is made up of both a brain and a body. Some humans have great brains, others have great bodies, and most have neither. To reduce social value to the quality of a brain is impossible. The ability to accurately quantify brain "quality" does not exist. It seems that most people disagree with your theory anyway. Witness the fascination the public has for the Olympics. There, the limits of the human body are tested. Public interest in championship chess, or other mental competition is much, much less intense. By the way, "quality" is usually defined as "performance to standards". What and whose standards are you measuring brains against anyway? Dave Holt Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt