Re: The Horror of Hammond

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 13:36:22 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: The Horror of Hammond"

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:18:13 -0500 Lucy Masters
    <> writes:
    > My thoughts exactly. I see Hammond is off his meds again and
    > relinquishing to his rage and twisted thought processes. I wish he
    > would stop using this list as his babysitter. Lucy
    > >>When I politely informed him he was an idiot, >>
    > That is interesting. How does one go about that? Even more -- how
    > does
    > one conclude that?
    > John Burgeson (Burgy)
    May I make a small correction and an explanation? I'm not sure that
    Hammond has ever taken medication. Most obsessives and psychotics do not
    recognize their condition and so have never been diagnosed and treated.

    The answer to Burgy's second question is what I call "Premise Number
    One," because it is so basic and because of its popularity. It is,
    however, not commonly recognized by those who base their "demonstrations"
    on it. Its fundamental form is: "Since you disagree with me about ...,
    you are " with the appropriate pejorative term. If the disagreement is
    moral, the terms are likely to be perverse, vicious, depraved, etc.
    Aesthetics brings out philistine, tasteless, etc. Intellectual matters
    bring out ignorant, stupid, dense, or Hammond's "an idiot." I find that
    those who have benefited from a good education are less likely to use
    Premise Number One overtly, for they recognize their fallibility and the
    tentativeness of their conclusions. At least I like to think so. But, if
    you look for the infamous premise, I believe you will find it used often.
    It has the advantage of making thought more efficient, since there is no
    need to consider the evidences presented by an idiot, a moral leper, and
    the like.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 13:39:13 EDT