it's the same thing that's happening with your claim that yours is a moral position against war, while the woman in Moore's film isn't taking a moral position! You've defined her position as not moral from the get go -- by ingoring the fact that what you've complained about is an essentially contested issue in the discipline of ethics itself -- no matter what Richard Singer has t say about it!
""While we considered her change of heart (or activism) a natural outcome of a contingent event (the loss of a son), and therefore not a moral stance, others found this personal reaction to be the very thing that placed her on high moral ground (I am not here addressing the entirely different point, which I agree with, that her personal loss lends her the gravitas and immunity to state what is true/right).""
This completely ignores about 30 years of feminist critique about such claims -- as well as an entire body of thought within ethics itself. You have a particular definition of ethics and refuse to concede ground to the notion that others have opposing definitions. Instead of arguing as to why they are wrong n their views, you simply flatly assert it and deny any dignity to others who don't see it your way.
(such critiques can be found, for instance, in the work of Carol Gilligan. There's more. There's always more, but that's a start. I'm not saying, also, that I agree with Gilligan per se.)
At 12:00 PM 8/8/2006, ravi wrote:
>At around 8/8/06 11:22 am, info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> > At 11:00 AM 8/8/2006, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > Ravi, d000d. Did you read the article? The guy actually makes these same
> > points!
> >
> > He says that modern med. gets it wrong and was, indeed, based on total
> > mythology in the beginning. He says that modern medicine borrows from
> > hippie medicine.
> >
>
>Yes I actually read the article and even noted his passing mention of
>the above -- I referred to it as the equivalent of Fox News' "Fair and
>Balanced". He says [some of] the same things as me, but he *does not*
>make the same points (or so I believe).
>
>
> > It's like you didn't get past the line in the opinion piece and decided
> > to take issue!
>
>
>Hmm! Did you read my initial response past the first line?
>
>
> > Furthermore, given that it was an opinion piece, I'm guessing he didn't
> > get into the nitty gritty since anyone can check his claims by reading
> > the research and complaining to him if he got it wrong. Kinda scientific
> > method, that!
>
>
>Is it? I thought the scientific method (if there is such a beast) was to
>present the data and make your references explicit?
>
>Since Doug brought up the issue of "idiots", I might as well borrow it:
>the problem with the reasoning offered by such defenders of Western
>medicine is that it is not parsimonious. The proof, otherwise, would
>have been in the pudding -- the rational choices that people make to
>deal with their most important problems: health. Instead, the reasoning
>relies (implicitly, or explicitly in the case of defenders such as the
>magician Randi) on some form of 'idiocy' of the public.
>
>Here's my point: modern science is best used in its explanatory and
>predictive sense, not in its limiting capabilities. The anecdotal
>patient was partially correct with regard to the issue of "open
>mindedness". Studies such as those conducted by NIH etc are very
>important and are quite informative. What they do not, and cannot, tell
>us is whether any alternative can be eliminated. Add to that the fact
>that Western/orthodox medicine's own underpinnings
>(scientific/foundational) and performance are at best sketchy in terms
>of consistency (both theoretical and empirical).
>
> --ravi
>
>(unfortunately my last bit on this -- will try to respond off-list to
>any further responses to me)
>
>--
>Support something better than yourself: ;-)
>PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
>GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
>If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"Scream-of-consciousness prose, peppered with sociological observations, political ruminations, and in-yore-face colloquial assaults."
-- Dennis Perrin, redstateson.blogspot.com
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org