NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53213

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 4.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!news.bbn.com!hsdndev!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.rice.edu!patrick
From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:35:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Distribution: na
Organization: Check with us when we get back next week.
Lines: 79
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:14:06 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:

 In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
 >
 > In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 > >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
 > >>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
 > >
 > >>>Considering his tendancy to
 > >>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
 > >>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
 > >>
 > >>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
 > >
 > >Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.
 >
 > The inability to see the other side of an argument is a sign of superficiality.
 >
 >Silly me -- I thought it was a sign of just plain stupidity.

 Then take the matter up with Mark Cochran, who seems to think that seeing the
 other side of an argument is a sign of "moral inconsistancy" [sic].

Why?  You're the one who proclaimed it's a sign of superficiality.  In that
case, you're definitely a superficial kind of guy.

 >The uncriticized, unanalyzed viewpoint is almost certain to be a worthless
 >viewpoint. As for Karl Marx, he probably COULD argue convincingly for the
 >aristocratic point of view in a debate, because although he ultimately didn't
 >agree with it, he understood it and appreciated it up to the point of his
 >disagreement.
 >
 >Why am I reminded of a former grad student at NCSU who claimed he knew
 >Aristotlean thought better than Aristotle?

 I have no idea why you would think such a thing, Humpty. From his works, I
 know that Karl Marx had sufficient intellectual depth to be able to argue
 compellingly from an opposing viewpoint. In fact, I may have even read some
 of his attempts to argue from an aristrocratic viewpoint, I can't remember
 for sure. I can, however, speak with a fair amount of confidence on that
 partciular point. Note however, that I never claimed to know Marx's thoughts
 better than he did...

Of course you have no idea -- but that's never stopped you yet from plunging
ahead with your quest for any excuse to flame certain people who have shown
you up before.  You're the one stating up there that Karl Marx understood
this, and appreciated that -- then you say you *may* have read something
about his arguments, but you're not even sure.  All I'm doing is pointing
out that you don't know, any more than anyone else, what Karl Marx really
thought about *anything*.  You weren't him.  Your asserting that he must
have felt a certain way about certain things, though, is what makes you look
just a little like a certain former grad student at NCSU.

 >> > [lots of pee-pee waving about largeness of medical centers]
 >
 > [...]

What's the matter -- don't like people showing your errors?  Somehow, I'm
not at all surprised.

 >> Besides, it's not just the size of your medical complex, it's how you use it :-)
 >
 >Indeed -- I guess that's why we have UTMDAH down here, and not up in some
 >ice mine in Michigan, eh?  (I wonder why we have such folks as Michael
 >DeBakey and Denton Cooley around here -- I guess they just couldn't stand
 >the competition for your pearls of "wisdom" up there at Moo U...:-)

 I think you're confused, Humpty. "Moo U" is Michigan State (MSU), not U of M.
 I've never heard anyone refer to U of M as "Moo U" before...

I'm perfectly aware of where MSU and UM are, and the differences between the
two schools -- now tell me, why should I care about either one of them?
They're up there in some frozen wasteland -- which means they obviously
don't have anything for me.  I'm in Texas, remember?  I can do as well and
stay in *this* country.  :-)

--PLH, hey Susan, start wiping out the Yankee scum...:-)
--