Janet,
> i'm having trouble following your logic
Sorry about that! I'll try to break it down:
My thinking is:
1. reasonable people do not knowingly harm others, unless they wish to
or cannot avoid it, because reasonable people are considerate of how their
actions effect others.
2. Ms Reno is a reasonable person (this is an assumption but, within the
scope of the argument, a reasonable one)
3. therefore Ms Reno will not knowingly hurt us unless she wants to or
cannot avoid it
4. Ms Reno's choice of words 'hurts' our cause because:
* as a result of omissions on the part of Ms Reno, an uninformed person,
with no ability to judge the stage of PD that Ms Reno is at, could well end
up believing that her remarks, which are specific to herself and the stage
she is at, apply to PD as a whole and that PD is less disabling than a
stutter and in fact is not even a difficulty.
* This undermines the perception of PD that we as a community are
striving to establish and could result in a reduction/delay of funding if PD
is percieved as trivial.
* This in turn could delay the finding of a cure.
* A delay in finding the cure 'hurts' all of us, both as a community
and as individuals.
5. As it is unlikely that Ms Reno would deliberatly and knowingly hurt us
(see 1-3) she must be doing so (see 4) through lack of knowledge or simply
because she has not thought through the implications of her words.
6. It is reasonable for people who are being hurt by the actions of
another to bring this fact to the attention of the person causing the hurt.
It is also reasonable to ask them to modify their actions so as to stop
causing the hurt.
7. It is reasonable for those being hurt to suggest ways in which the
person causing the hurt can modify their actions so as to stop causing the
hurt.
I hope this helps.
Dennis
.
