"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:45:19 -0700, "doyle" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, "doyle" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:08:14 -0700, "doyle" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Alice Walker is a Feminist writer.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which part do you object to?
> >> >I simply made a statement.
> >>
> >> A statement with no logical relation to the statement that follows?
> >> How odd.
> >>
> >> My dog has a cold nose. Snowmobiles are a problem in Yellowstone.
> >>
> >> If you choose to respond to that, I'll just say that I simply made a
> >> statement.
> >>
> >> >> >She isn't qualified to proclaim animals are not for food.
> >> >>
> >> >> What would constitute qualifications for doing so?
> >> >Suppose you tell me.
> >>
> >> Extensive knowledge of ethics and the study thereof, for starters. But
> >> you're the one who proclaimed her unqualified, so you take it from
> >> there.
> >
> >Who's ethics? Isn't that something that varies by culture?
> >
> The study of ethics is an academic disicipline, and yes it does
> include multiple cultures. I would find an ethicist much more
> persuasive from the standpoint of qualifications than I would Alice
> Walker. But to dismiss her as unqualified to speak on the subject of
> ethics because she is a "feminist writer" strikes me as an
> unsupportable position.

My statement was, "She isn't qualified to proclaim animals are not for
food".
Maybe it wasn't perceived the way it was intended. IBwhatshername quoted
Alice Walker's poem.
Without authority, the proclamation is meaningless to those with opposing
opinions.

Okay, go ahead and pick this one apart too.