[lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Tue Aug 8 10:32:51 PDT 2006


At around 8/8/06 12:55 pm, info at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> 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..
>

No, not at all actually. I explained why I believe her position is not moral. My explanation could be wrong of course.


> -- 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!

Peter Singer? If so: Are you bringing him up because of the earlier debate on animal "rights" issues? As in I am some sort of blind follower of Singer on ethics? So, I have outlined some thoughts (not complaints) and perhaps I am unaware of their being addressed within the study of ethics. Again, I can be wrong and should be shown to be so, when time is available.


> ""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.

Of course I cannot catch up with 30 years of feminist critique in making a logical argument. However, I shouldn't need to. The argument is laid out and can and should be criticized. I do not have any definition of ethics that I refuse to concede ground on. Hence my concluding that post with the question "Thoughts?". Of course others have opposing definitions and views (in fact I stated that very thing) and I am curious as to what they are and how their reasoning works, having presented mine.

Either I have a style of writing or expression (or just way of thought) that is quite different from what I think it is [most of the time], or you harbour some deep personal grudge against me that makes you chose to write such commentary as the above. I can do something about the former, and I invite list-members to tell me (either on or off-list) so.

--ravi

P.S: I am still replying on-list and in fact over quota because of what I perceive as needlessly personal attacks against me, by BL. I will admit that the 3-post rule, if fairly implemented, should have no exceptions. On the other hand, I am emotionally upset enough by BL's posts, that I am unable to ignore them or delay responding to them. I invite Doug or Jordan to throw me off the list! ;-)

P.P.S: I appreciate the response by one person pointing to the subtleties of the public health vs bio-medicine debate. I will follow through, when time is available, on his pointers.

-- 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/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list