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