On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Gordon Fitch wrote:
> I suppose Fisk's work is damaging to the repute of the imperial
> enterprise, therefore Fisk must be neutralized; but a detailed
> attack on his work would involve the further exposition of
> the very material which renders it offensive. Therefore, it
> is preferable to seize on a purely rhetorical offense, to wit,
> the excessive use of a common hyperbole ("If I was him Ida ...")
Can't speak for Brad or Thomas, but your attempt at pop psychology fails to accurately explain my motives. They're a bit more benign: I enjoy parsing language.
You're also incorrect about his "rhetorical offense" consisting of "the excessive use of a common hyperbole." There are at least two different senses of the proposition, "If I was in his shoes..." One of them is a substanitive endorsement of the act. For example, if a poor man steals medicine to save the life of his wife, a man of greater means might say that he would've done the same in the other's shoes. In this sense the statement can be seen as making the case for a set of situational ethics like consequentialism or relativism. If this is what Fisk was getting at, it would mean that he thought his beating was good in some manner. We've already discussed the weaker and more trivial form of the proposition (i.e. if I were in their shoes I would've done all that being in their shoes leads one to do).
-- Luke
> If you don't like the message, and can't stop the messenger,
> you can deplore the shape of his hat. Anything to get off
> the repulsive subject.
>
> -- Gordon
>