[Back to Main | Show Dates | Photos | Language Index]
i would like to point out that the intended interpretation of the above reply is NOT literal. i am very interested in the workings of natural language, particularly the way in which structure contributes to the effectiveness, clarity and power of particular statements. the forms of analysis applicable to the issue of dicursive rhetoric seems currently to be largely underdetermined. in this case i seem to have engaged in an experiment which has a large potential for misinterpretation --- and it seems that the more problematic interpretations are not conducive to the promotion of a healthy environment for free dicussions. i just want to be clear --- michael, this is for you in particular --- i mean no harm to anyone. if i have been a bit intimidating, it is only because i am spontaneous in my construction of the forms of expression which i think will be most effective in inspiring reactions to the issues at hand. in the case of the above example, i merely intend to promote the response in which people recognize that we have no clear idea what we mean when we employ terminology like "bad" and "good". is the clear intent to undermine the effective replication of moral systems between two generations --- in which the older expresses the belief that his moral structures are essential to the avoidance of deadly state sanction --- enough to justify the violent intervention of state. how bad can i be before my execution is authorized by the state? i'm really a nice guy. but you have to understand that i consider capital punishment as vile as you find its opposition. perhaps through the creative use of rhetoric we can make our ideas clear to one another. thank you for participating in our discussion and don't let our messages scare you. we only want the best for our society and its members.