[Re: Consensus? We don't need no stinkin' consensus...]

[LUIS VILDOSOLA]

I support your judgement about "Medicalizing" your opponent's arguments with
the belief of having some practical value.

Eric Cordian <emc at artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote:
> 
> An anonymous twit writes:
> 
> > Anger expressed by commission is usually justified by laudable motives,
> > e.g. concern for the well-being of the victim. The expression of the
> > anger is dictated by the desire to wound while concealing the intention
> > to wound -- even the existence of the anger. This is not to spare the
> > feelings of the victim but to wound them more effectively. The intent is
> > to provoke counteranger with such subtlety that the victim blames
> > himself and believes his anger is not justified.  That way, people with
> > PAPD can assume the role of innocent victim (Kantor, 1992,
> > pp. 178-180). They may make directly hostile statements because they
> > fail to perceive their own motivating attitude, perceive their hostility
> > too late, or believe that their attitude can be concealed.
> 
> Can't we do without Victimologist prattle on a cryptography and privacy
> list?  Shrinks should be next after all the lawyers are fed to the lions.
> 
> "Medicalizing" your opponent's argument, instead of responding to it, is a
> tactic of police states, religious nuts, controlling relatives, and
> idiots.  
> 
> Which one are you?
> 
> -- 
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1