Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!whuxi!ktw From: ktw@whuxi.UUCP (WOLMAN) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Quo Vadis Science? Message-ID: <200@whuxi.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 12:57:33 EST Article-I.D.: whuxi.200 Posted: Thu Dec 13 12:57:33 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 06:48:34 EST References: <224@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany, N.J. Lines: 28 Xref: watmath net.religion:5089 net.flame:7218 A person whose final tactics in an argument consist of the following -- 1) Allowing the works of others to do his arguing for him; and 2) Referring to his antagonists as "nits" and "slugs at the bottem [sic] of the moral barrel" -- is a person who forfeits any right to be treated civilly by anyone who cares about morals, religion, the art of discourse, or the breakdown of our civilization. Discussions employing this kind of language suggest not a concern with preserving the moral vitality of what remains of the Judaeo-Christian ethic, but the very scapegoating and animalizing objectification of one's opponents that really DID make possible the line in front of the SS recruiting office. That is, if I can refer to my opponent as a "slug" or a "nit," sooner or later I'm going to believe he is precisely that, and I will bring myself one step closer to acting on that belief, given the opportunity. Words are performative; they are not simply syllables shaped and spoken, but latent acts. Why don't you take that act somewhere else before it gets you into serious trouble? Ken Wolman Bell Communications Research (201) 740-4565 whuxi!ktw