Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!jim
From: jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re(2): LAMBDA FLAME FLAME et al...
Message-ID: <18@ism780.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Aug-83 19:30:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780.18
Posted: Fri Aug 19 19:30:00 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Aug-83 09:08:32 EDT
Lines: 39

Laura, I very much agree with you that people without opinions should
abstain, and that people's opinions should be based on fact (or, more
accurately, evidence).  I was once interviewed in a door-to-door survey
of opinions about a proposition on the ballot to change the usury laws
in California.  For several questions I said that I didn't know enough
about it to have an opinion; the interviewer was genuinely surprised,
and claimed I was the first person she had encountered who had no opinion.
Most people seem to think that having an opinion about something like
that is like having a favorite color or a favorite ball team.

However, you seem once again to be offering a strawman (oops)
argument.  You are arguing against something never said, and
missing the core concept being communicated (much as your use
of the term "horsepower" as an analogy for "manpower" sidesteps
the legitimate issues; as with many dishonest analogies, the degree
to which it "proves the point" is directly related to the degree to
which it is inappropriate).  It was not said that everyone should have
an opinion about everything, and you can't honestly believe
that anyone using the phrase "If you are not part of the solution
then you are part of the problem." means to say that.
You are having trouble with sample spaces again.  The phrase is pointed
at people who are in some way taking part in or advantage of the situation,
but professing neutrality.  The problem is that those people are least
likely to see their role, and so they will miss the point of the
phrase and see it only as hostile nonsense.  In that way, I agree that
it is dangerous.  A bad argument for something can be more damaging
than a good argument against it (and may be much easier to come by).

If people want to talk about how they feel when addressed by certain pronouns
or titles, or are labeled in inaccurate ways, that seems like a legitimate
discussion on this network.  But arguments about the nature of scientific
proof, ad hominem arguments about people being paranoid or insecure for
disliking certain language use, ridiculous analogies (do you think of
mares *and* stallions when you hear "stallionpower"?), etc., are irrelevant,
misleading, arrogant, egocentric, and intellectually dishonest.

Jim Balter (decvax!yale!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp

--------