Good afternoon Bill,
As a stray non-academic on this list, and from the depth of my ignorance,
the pivital argument in the whole shooting match is the arrogance of even
thinking that someone can know, or predict what the quality of life or
lifestyle is in the embryo, infant or for that matter 40 years into the
future. It seems to me that this is the foundation Singer's argument is
built on. It is also its weakness as it rests on theory and assumptions.
The professions would like us to think that they know, where in fact they
are only punters in suits. Physical disabilities may be more readily obvious
than psychiatric or intellectual ones, but their relationship to quality of
life or lifestyle now or later is anybody's guess, and again a relative
thing: a person with a profound disability living in Boston may well do much
better than a person with a lesser disability in Calcutta. Those who claim
that valid judgements can be made are likely to make the mistake of
measuring the obvious, and leaving the abstract in the too hard basket. This
inevitable distortion constitutes the core of the argument, more so than the
inequality created by allowing a two class system of judges and judged. The
rest is a red herring, a distraction.
have a good time, rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: Carnagey, Bill <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: Phyllis' comments Re: Asch/Singer debate
> In my humble opinion, this Singer character is nothing more or nothing
less
> than a Rush Limbaugh dressed up in Professor's clothing. No doubt, he
> (appears at very least) to be of a Nazi mindset. I think, however, that
as
> much he is just capitalizing-as is Princeton-on an otherwise very sick
mind.
> He's found the right buttons to push to make a big name for himself-and
for
> Princeton-and they are all laughing all the way to the bank. The scary
> thing for me is that like Rush Limbaugh and late night Saturday
> wrestling-each icons of American fakery and exploit-ism-the American
public
> and the World too are waiting with baited breath to hear and possibly
absorb
> this idiot's vile and dangerous rhetoric. As alarming as Singer himself
is,
> I find Princeton to be equally irresponsible. Is it my imagination or is
> this just another time bomb waiting to explode? How long before the T.V.
> news magazines will have a hay day cashing in on the violence and
> "terrorism" that mysteriously took place on the Princeton campus? How
much
> damage will this guy do between now and then?
>
> Sorry for having no answers for idiots like Singer and the even bigger
> idiots that give him an iota of credibility. I was just compelled,
however,
> to share my take on this very sick individual. For what it may be worth,
I
> plan to give him no more credibility than Rush or Saturday night
wrestling.
> I do, however, plan to watch him like a hawk.
>
> Bill C., M.S.Ed., CVE
> The LD Adaptive Computer Technologist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Bredberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 5:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Phyllis' comments Re: Asch/Singer debate
>
> I was unable to hear last night's transmission, and am grateful for the
> reports that have been published on this page.
>
> I just don't get it. I've read this guy's stuff, and gone back to it
again
> and again, to see if I'd missed something that made other people take him
> seriously. And yes, I think Phyllis is right -- he's slick. I wonder if
> that isn't the reason for his success. His discussion of ethics is, at
> face value, much more accessible than that of other writers (ok, in
itself,
>
> <snip>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|