In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:17:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx writes: A: "People who don't care for the well being of babies will never understand those who do." B: "Yeah, but we won't care." ---- Exactly. Or recall Malcolm Bradbury's 'youthful piece' as he wrote to me in my copy when I met him in the Buenos Aires Book Fair. "Eating people is wrong" That was the line from "The reluctant cannibal", by Flanders and Swann. I have discussed it elsewhere in terms of Blackburn's attitudinalism. "Boiling Babies Barbaric" works similarly. The 'reluctant water boarder' may be under strict orders -- 'due obedience' they call it in Argentina: Goebbels worked under it, lots of Mussolinians, too. "Baby" is ambiguous. A foetus can be a baby. Many pregnant women have boiled their babies to death by taking an immersion foamy bath when they shouldn't. 'baby' can apply to 'baby cockroach', which _should_ be boiled. "baby" is derogatory for 'cute chick'. If she is not a minor, a witch, and we live in Saalem, 1720, she was possibly boiled. And where does Elizabeth Anscombe says this? I hope there is a context. I never use 'baby'. It's infantile talk, like 'babbino', as in "Mio babbino caro". We can assume a species of animals which survive 'boiling'. Why assume that 'boil' means 'boil to death'? In which case, 'boiling babies of _strenosauri delicati_' would be more like 'cleaning' them or 'entertain' them. Philosophy: The Exercise of Intelligence Applied to Real-World Cases Misused by Politicians. Cheers, JL **************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003) ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html