Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
>
>
> This sounds to me as difficult as separating ink from the gallon of
> milk you just spilled it in.
>
You don't. But that's not relevant.
You can discuss social forces without mentioning particular people; in fact almost _all_ discussion of social forces/social relations is done without reference to particular people. But you cannot discuss a particular person without more or less explict relevance to social forces.
Your claim to be gossiping was, as a matter of fact, a sufficient response to my original post. Gossip away.
But there is not one iota of excuse for the gross stupidity that one can judge the validity of a propositon by a characterization of the person who prnounces it. It is either gross ignorance to do so or a serious psychological problem if one is unable to consider a proposition in abstractin fromt personality.
There's an anecdote concerning Frank Knox (Roosevelt's Secretary of the Navy and owner of the Chicago Times) and Colonel McKormick Knox ordered his editors to oppose everythng the Tribune supported. This reached the good Colonel, who immediately ordered his editors to launch a campaign against syphilis.
If I said (echoin Richard Lewonti) tha tuberculosis is a social prblem would it make sense for someone to say that must be false because Cox said it. One can discuss peopl, one can attack them fairly or unfairly, without making a fool of oneself by showing ignorance of a logical princple 2500 years old and never challenged by any literate person before.
Carrol