Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site ittvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!allenm From: allenm@ittvax.UUCP (Allen Matsumoto) Newsgroups: net.kids,net.philosophy Subject: Re: ah utopia - logic - dicipline - love - flames - kids Message-ID: <1616@ittvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 16:26:19 EST Article-I.D.: ittvax.1616 Posted: Fri Feb 1 16:26:19 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:48:41 EST References: <414@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: ITT-ATC, Stratford Ct. Lines: 79 Xref: watmath net.kids:953 net.philosophy:1434 The following article seems guilty of using argumentative "tricks", which is what it complains about its target of doing. It starts by categorizing the author (and the article) in perjoritive terms (guilt by association?). Then gives the word logic in "disbelief quotes" without explicitly saying what really is or is not logical. And then it lists several "sneaky elements" without attributing any one to particular things of the original article. This is a real shotgun approach to discrediting a whole article. This is as bad as "These are possible illogical things. Here is an article. Here is my position." (Not your classic textbook debate :-) I know many of you won't believe such an unfair attack exists, so I am quoting it here: > The following apparently comes from the "last remaining LIBERAL". > It is a good example of the seductiveness of humanistic "logic". > > NOTICE however the following sneaky elements of this "debate": > PUTTING WORDS IN THE OPPONENTS MOUTH ! > SETTING UP STRAW MEN ! > IMPLICIT GUILT BY ASSOCIATION ! > EXTENDING FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL ! > EXTENDING FROM THE GENERAL TO THE SPECIFIC ! > HIDDEN SUBJECTIVITY (NEVER STATING VALUES EXPLICITLY). > IGNORING DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE ! > > [original article copied here with no indication of what is illogical, > offending, or examples of the "sneaky elements" listed above.] > |Jan W. ... > > Uh, Jan, how many kids you got? > > We have 5 and our policy is never spank under 2.5 yrs and hopefully > not after 12 yrs of age and hopefully never more than once a year! > > Rick I'm amazed at the whole thing. First, there is simply no way for the original author to defend, since it's never clear what is being attacked. To say something like, "This isn't an example of sneaky element X," would be met with, "I didn't say it was." That means either (a) it's sneaky element Y, or (b) something else is sneaky element X. Also, the author is categorized as the "last remaining LIBERAL". What sort of response can there be to that? I'm not LIBERAL. I'm not liberal. I'm not the last remaining LIBERAL. etc. All these are missing the actual attack. If the audience dislikes liberals, than not being the "last" or the "capitalized" liberal is no help. If the audience is liberal, the author is accused of misrepresenting them. Rather like the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Same comments about "humanistic logic". (I think of myself as liberal. What's wrong with that? And no, I haven't stopped beating my wife.) Finally (this probably is getting too long), what do the comments about number of children and your spanking policy have to do with the logic of the argument. How many kids you have says something about your experience, not about whether you know anything about raising them well. Having policies about spanking doesn't prove they are good policies, or even well-reasoned ones. Worse yet, the original argument at least tried to reason from some base toward specific conclusions, while this article simply attacks, and then presents unconnected facts. If you can show the logic is faulty (you haven't), that doesn't imply the conclusions are wrong. If you want to say your logic is superior (it doesn't seem to be), that doesn't imply your policies are right. -- Allen Matsumoto ITT Adv. Tech. Center, Stratford, CT 06497 203-385-7218 (decvax!ittvax!allenm) : Any opinions expressed are my opinions.