ught that this might come from religious animus, I asked whether
a Roman Catholic who entered a Protestant church was also a pervert.
Case 51 replied, "Yes."
Case 51 therefore assumes that any change from an original state is
abnormal. The application to the charge of bad logic consists in this
further test:
I asked Case 51 whether a man originally brought up in Conservative
views would be a pervert if he became a Liberal.
Case 51 replied, "No."
On another occasion Case 51 referred to exaggerated praise showered upon
a popular hero, and said that the newspapers were "belittling" him.
I pointed out that they were doing the very contrary; that indeed they
were exaggerating his prowess.
Confronted with the dictionary, and the meaning of "belittle", which is
"to cheapen with intent", she insisted that "belittling" was the correct
word because "the result of this exaggerated praise was to make the man
smaller in her own mind."[1]
[1] The notes as to Case 51 have not an absolute bearing upon logic in
general, but the reasons put forth in her defense by Case 51 are
indicative of a certain kind of logic which is not masculine. I must add
that Case 51 is a woman of very good education, with many general
interests.--THE AUTHOR.
_Case 63_
In the course of a discussion on the war in which Case 63 has given vent
to moral and religious views, she remarks, "Thou shalt not kill."
I: "Then do you accept war?"
Case 63: "War ought to be done away with."
I (attempting to get a straight answer): "Do you accept war?"
Case 63: "One must defend one's self."
Upon this follows a long argument in which I attempt to prove to Case 63
that one defends, not one's self but the nation. When in difficulties
she repeats, "One must defend one's self."
She refuses to face the fact that if nobody offered any resistance,
nobody would be killed; she completely confuses the defense of self
against a burglar with that of a nation against an invader. Finally she
assumes that the defense of one's country is legitimate, and yet insists
on maintaining with the Bible that one may not kill!
_Case 33_
Case 33: "Why didn't America interfere with regard to German atrocities
in Belgium?"
I: "Why should she?"
Case 33: "America did protest when her trade was menaced."
I: "Yes. America wanted to protect her interests, but does it follow
that she should protest against atrocities which do not menace her
interests?"
Case
|