[extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality.

[Samantha Atkins]

It was not a reasonable usage when you include the context and  
recognize the usage prejudices the mind toward seeing abortion as  
murder.   Stand alone definitions are not sufficient to conclude  
whether a given usage was reasonable in its context.   And of course  
abortion itself wan]s not remotely the subject at hand so deeper sins  
against context were present.

Such "discussions" leave me tired.

- samantha

On May 31, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/1/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net <John-C-Wright at sff.net> wrote:
>
>> Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood to which  
>> unborn human
>> entity my word referred. There was no misunderstanding: I violated  
>> a political
>> taboo common to a certain stance that I do not share. The pretense  
>> is that all
>> "intelligent" right-thinking men speak the same way using the same  
>> euphamisms on
>> the approved topics. My apologies if I offend, but I am not a  
>> conformist to
>> these particular doctrines, speech codes, habits, or taboos, and  
>> it would be
>> wrong for me to talk as if I were.
>>
>
> While I happen to be on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue,
> John has a point here. There's enough slack in the definitions of the
> words involved that neither usage can be struck out on technical
> grounds. John chooses words that reflect the way he sees things, just
> as his opponents in the debate choose words that reflect theirs. He
> does not demand other people modify their language to match his views;
> he is perfectly entitled to refuse to modify his to match theirs.
>
> - Russell
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>