Re: [OPE-L] compromise

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 29 2006 - 11:43:13 EST

>At 6:32 -0800 29-11-2006, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>>>I want to stres that I am very happy of this compromise. I value
>>>very much Rakesh's contributions, as well as Jerry's and his role
>>>as coordinator.
>>>Point 2) seem to me the ABC of the ethics of conversation, but
>>>weel, ok, let's repeat it ..
>>To me that point is more like a a fabulated letter imposed on the
>>real alphabet .
>>To me there are other keys to the ethics of conversation--honest
>>use of evidence, avoidance of straw men, open acceptance of the
>>persuasive arguments and existence of interlocutors, concern that
>>your positions will not needlessly injure in an ad hominem manner
>>the deliberative capacities of the more vulnerable, recognition of
>>the effects of the social and (in this case) academic field on the
>>differential power of the conversants, an attempt to think through
>>the very complicated relationship between emotion and logic, the
>>provision of actual publically comprehensible reasons for one's
>There is no contradiction in accepting your other keys (though you
>forgot to add that in human conversation does not exist any third
>party, outside point of view, to judge : hence, in the lists, the
>need for rules and moderators, which may be fallible but better than
>nothing), and holding to my view.
>I repeat that I am happy you're back, and will leave the
>"procedural" discussion here.

Yes questions of ethics are complicated.

Here's another example.

For a sense of how epistemically bankrupt and politically dangerous
is the claim that rape has been observed in non human animals, please
see] compromise

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST