|
|
Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
18 Aug 1996 11:14:05 -0600
In article <4v7iu5$2pb2@argo.unm.edu>, Bryant <mycol1@unm.edu> wrote:
In article <4v6h9f$1h6@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
<HR57JazzandBlues.@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
>
>>A few people have questioned my motives in starting this thread. Well, tough.
>
>Did you take any time at all to wonder WHY people questioned your
>motives? Judging from your post you could have cared less.
Why *should* any of us care less? Questioning motives is an interesting
exercise after it's been shown that somebody's arguments are illogical,
but it's a poor argumentation tactic. Why not look at the content of
one's post, respond to it as though it were sincerely posited, and go
from there?
Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about Gould's or Rushton's motives
for presenting the versions of human evolution they do, for example. I
look at the content of their versions, and compare those to the facts at hand.
Calling somebody a bigot does not speak to their points. It's a
chickenshit distraction technique that should be ignored.
Bryant
|