Hi,
Mike Mulka wrote ...
Oh, and the author of the above quotes? Adolf Hitler. If that isn't a good example that knowledge of the author
puts the content into perspective, I don't know what is.
So does that invalidate what could be learnt from something like "Words build bridges into unexplored regions" ?
Does the nature of a person regarded as evil condemn all their words and deeds?
Hmmm ... perhaps you'd like to start burning books now.
Colin
> Oh, and the author of the above quotes? Adolf Hitler.
> If that isn't a good example that knowledge of the author
> puts the content into perspective, I don't know what is.So does that invalidate what could be learnt from something like "Words build bridges into unexplored regions" ?
Does the nature of a person regarded as evil condemn all their words and deeds?
I think it helps put things into perspective. How you say things, what context they are in, who said it and the intonation and ulterior motives are all important considerations when listening to messages.
Hmmm ... perhaps you'd like to start burning books now.
I've been tempted by certain books... 
Clint
<<Colin Forbes wrote:>>
<<So does that invalidate what could be learnt from something like
"Words build bridges into unexplored regions"? Does the nature of a
person regarded as evil condemn all their words and deeds? Hmmm ...
perhaps you'd like to start burning books now.>>
YOW Colin! You make some extreme leaps here. The discussion was whether
or not the author of a statement is totally irrelevant. My claim is that
the author IS relevant. I did not say that say that it totally
invalidates the content, but knowledge of the author can most certainly
affect the context in which the statement is given.
In the example of Hitler's quotes, anyone can plainly see, (with the
hindsight of history), that Hitler was an evil man. Any altruistic
statements he may have made were obviously either insane rantings or
obfuscation on his part. The fact that some of the statements might be
logically applied in other circumstances doesn't change the fact that
their use by Hitler had not so much to do with their content as their
propaganda value.
So, when a famous and respected author (pick your favorite) is quoted as
saying "Words build bridges into unexplored regions", the vast majority
of people would take such a statement as an axiom. When Hitler is quoted
as saying the same thing, the vast majority of people would call it
nothing but propaganda and lies used to deceive the audience. Knowledge
of the author does affect how we react to the statements made,
regardless of what we might feel about the logic of the content itself.
Now, these are extreme cases, (as Hitler was an extremely evil man), but
extreme cases are often used to help illustrate a point. I was certainly
not claiming anyone on this list is evil, nor anything like Adolf
Hitler. Neither did I say that we should ban anyone's statements, either
from this list or from history. If you want to read Mien Kampf go right
ahead, but if you start quoting it I'll be happy to point out the
idiocies.
Now, I HAVE stated that making the same argument over and over and over
again doesn't really help a healthy debate, and have suggested that once
something has been beaten soundly, it would probably be better to just
move on. (Kind of like this particular point, but I felt the need to
respond to your accusations.) However, I really have no idea where you
get the idea that I would "like to start burning books now". My point
was whether or not a statement's author was relevant to it's validity,
and not that the statements themselves should be banned. I'm not an
advocate of censorship and I quite frankly resent your implication.
Quick. Who made the following quote:
"If that isn't a good example that knowledge of the author puts the
content into perspective, I don't know what is."
Well?... It was me, and there was no mention of censorship or book
burning.
Mike Mulka