tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post113785484108408786..comments2024-03-14T16:16:26.474+01:00Comments on The Stuttering Brain: In defense of JohnsonTom Weidighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-1138004632437570582006-01-23T09:23:00.001+01:002006-01-23T09:23:00.001+01:00The law student surely gets it wrong when he says ...The law student surely gets it wrong when he says that "we do not justify the means with the ends".<BR/><BR/>Surely we do. This week, the CIA has bombed a village house in Pakistan killing several civilians (including children) to take out Al-Qaida fighters. No US politician has criticed such policy, where the means did justify the ends interpreting their inaction.<BR/><BR/>My client has only had the best in mind, and as I said no children were harmed. In fact, many many more were saved.<BR/><BR/>OK. I better stop this role playing or I get into real big trouble...Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-1137900340746105162006-01-22T04:25:00.000+01:002006-01-22T04:25:00.000+01:00As the plaintiff's lawyer, I would argue thus:Whil...As the plaintiff's lawyer, I would argue thus:<BR/><BR/>While in hindsight we can see a signficant contribution by Professor Johnson to the scientific field regarding persistent developmental stuttering, counsel for the defense misses the mark simply because he fails to realize that, even when contributions are made that result in positive steps...we do not justify the means with the ends. <BR/><BR/>If a method of curing cancer were found that required us to torture sentient beings...no civil society would allow it. If we could cure AIDS by a method that involved terrorizing small children, even when the terrorizing didn't result in lasting harm...no civilized society would allow it. <BR/><BR/>The cure for AIDS in this country can easily be obtained: We could simply round up all the AIDS patience, quarantine them...or simply eliminate them. This would be a very effective cure and one that would probably deter irresponsible behavior in others, so afflicted. Why don't we use it?<BR/><BR/>Simple: Because the ends do not justify the means.<BR/><BR/>Professor Johnson cannot possibly justify terrorizing small children simply because the result was a greater understanding of the stuttering phenomenon...and the reason is perfectly clear: In doing what he did, he infringed upon the constitutional rights of a group of children. Nobody has the right to terrorize anybody...much less small children...in the interest of advancing science. <BR/><BR/>The advancement of science never outweighs the rights of an individual. <BR/><BR/>Among other things, Professor Johnson is guilty of Intentiional Infliction of Emotional Distress upon those children. He willingly and knowingly pursued a line of behavior and actions that he knew (and intended) would result in emotional distress of the children. We know this, because his intent was to cause the children to have a Persistent Developmental Stutter.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04495681646192923618noreply@blogger.com