[extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality.

[Brett Paatsch]

John C Wright wrote:

> Brett Paatsch writes: "I'd certainly object to the use of the
> word "child" if it was intended as a non perjorative term to
> describe the whole class of living human entities from 
> fertilization to just before birth nine months later. Such
> a single classification could not be more biased or more
> misleading."
> 
> He also calls the use of the term child "perjorative" (sic)
> which means: "having negative connotations; especially
> tending to disparage or belittle."

To call an embryo a child is to beg the important ethical
question of what status that human entity ought have by
presuming to answer it in the formation of the question. 

That is why I see it as biased or misleading to use the
term child. 

> In this case, in other words, he is claiming that my 
> calling an unborn human entity a child is an insult, a
> disparagement, to the child. This is a mildly puzzling use
> of the term. As if to be a "child" were a lower dignity
> than to be an "entity"? 

The point is that entity isn't value ladden by prior usage.
I am not trying to strip the dignity away from anything.

I found your recourse to a dictionary to justify your use
of the word to be disingenuous and potentially deceitful
given that Samantha and Damien had already objected 
to the term. You seemed to be trying to use your skill
with words to steal a position and stack a debate rather
than to make your case on its merit.

A general dictionary definition of the word child is the
wrong tool to establish the meaning of the word child
as you intended to stretch it and you ought to have
damn well known it. If you thought you were the 
average mug American that needed to consult a
dictionary to determine the meaning of the word child
you would not be sending a post to this list headed
"Famous author self destructs in public".
 
> As I said, I have not the patience to debate the point. 

Let me be very clear on this point. I don't regard you
as someone who I or anyone else here has an obligation
to humor or to be deferential to. I had never heard
of  John C Wright until Damien posted to this list to
say that he had found God. 

So far I am not greatly impressed with what I have
seen of John C Wright who claims to have been visited
by "the Holy Paraclete (sic)" and thinks that morality can
be objectively grounded in a world view that includes a 
the christian God, (when I asked you to give your 
explanation of the problem of evil you declined saying
that that had been addressed by others more capable 
than you - you dodged the hard personal question), so
in short I don't care about trying your patience. On the
contrary you will have to be on your very best behavior
for me to feel that I am not wasting my time talking to
you, or worse, that I might be giving a close minded 
rhetorican and professional pest the tools to spread the
next generation of bullshit to the faithful.

>With all due resect, his argument is that a certain term,
> used commonly enough by enough people that at
> least one standard, commonly used dictionary (Merriam
> Webster) lists it, not as an obscure or archaic meaning, 
> but as the primary meaning. 

Bollocks. Thats not my argument, you are trying to put
words into my mouth. 

If you believe in God you might do well to be careful
of the prohibitions and consequence of bearing false
witness.  
 
> Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood
> to which unborn human entity my word referred.

You are guessing that no one misunderstood it. Whether
readers did or not you cannot know. What is clear is
that you persisted with a term that others found
objectionable. You chose propaganda instead of 
communication. 

>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.

I thought your pretense, even deceit, was to presume to
set the record straight whilst embedding the crookedness
within it at a subtler level. 

> My apologies if I offend, 

You apologise and pretend to be courteous and deferential
frequently. Frankly, I for one, do not trust that you are
sincere. I will give you another chance. I am doing that by
writing to you rather than ignoring you. 

> 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.

Just so you know. I will decide when I think you are sincere
and I will decide when I think you are wrong.  And if you 
believe in God and the Devil you may imagine that they will
form their own views as well. 

Brett Paatsch