You are completely correct. Sadly, you are correct. Sadly because others
do listen, read, and accept what he says....David
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Graham wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9908311039030.5704-100000@uhunix5>, David
> Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
> > However, there is a very basic assumption which makes Singer's entire
> > argument (and thus, I suppose, his career) irrelevant.
> > ...
> > What this all means is that Peter Singer's conclusions are based upon
> > a faulty ontology.
>
> First of all, thank you for your compliments.
>
> Secondly I would agree with you that Singer's argument is based upon a
> faulty ontology.
>
> However, no matter how faulty Singer's assumptions may be, this does not
> make his argument, nor his career irrelevant.
>
> Singer's argument becomes relevant if enough people accept it and if
> that argument affects decision making
>
> Further Singer's argument is already relevant in that it causes a large
> number of people to take polarised positions, either in favour or
> against it.
>
>
> --
> Graham Palmer
> [log in to unmask]
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
Resident Scholar
Center on Disability Studies
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
[log in to unmask]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Center on Disability Studies....maximizing individual
potential by encouraging independence, self-determination,
and full participation in the community.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|