Letter: Debates without data difficult to prove
I would like to thank Jamie R. Wilks for the letter ("Letter had logical flaws," 1/27/11) addressing my letter ("Words have consequences," 1/20/11) concerning whether a person is responsible for the consequences of what they write or say. You might say the consequence of your letter was this one. The writer’s first problem was my logic. Logic on a philosophical debate especially one with no data is always faulty due to perspective as in when you a debate with a neighbor over politics or religion when your neighbor is of a different faith and political persuasion. At best one can learn from another and agree to disagree. In logic one must prove their assumption (did) by proving the opposite (did not) is wrong. Without data neither is true therefore you are back to opinion.
As to the second and more important question of should my letter stir someone to violence would I also be to blame? No, my letter contained no thoughts or images that could be perceived by a twisted mind to endorse violence unlike yours that suggested such action. We will never remove statements from our public discourse that can be perceived as promoting violence but to paraphrase one politician, "it is time to man up" and understand words matter.