Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: General research for/by the military.
Message-ID: <5452@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 20:43:24 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5452
Posted: Tue Apr  9 20:43:24 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 20:43:24 EST
References: <5437@utzoo.UUCP> <487@deepthot.UUCP> <2255@wateng.UUCP>, <578@utcs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 40

> A:  We should repeal the law that imposes hanging as the penalty for throwing
>     candy-wrappers into the street.  [I told you it was hypothetical!]
> B:  Ah, but you're against capital punishment in any form.  I won't listen to
>     any of your arguments.
> A:  (faints, throws brick -- whatever you like)

It's not quite so ridiculous if you make it a closer analogy to the SDI
discussion, by changing A's initial line to something like:

	A: The law that imposes hanging as the penalty for throwing
	candy-wrappers into the street is logically inconsistent and
	utterly unenforceable, and hence should be repealed.

Note that he isn't just advocating a course of action, he is offering
specific reasons to support his cause.  Now consider a modified reply:

	B: Can you prove that the law is inconsistent and so forth, or
	are you just saying that because you want it repealed anyway?

B may be impugning A's honesty, but he is not being silly.

> In other words, the fact that a debater would argue against taking military
> money under any circumstances, using more general (and presumably weaker)
> arguments, does not render suspect his/her using quite strong arguments that
> apply specifically to Star Wars.

It does not render his arguments invalid, but it offers some reason for
hesitating to accept them without detailed proof.  There are people in
the world who have such a bias against anything labelled "military" that
they don't care about its merits and strengths; all they care about is
whether it has weak points that they can use to attack it.  Such people
remain worth listening to, but skepticism is definitely in order.

Of course, one also finds such people on the other side of the debate.

The first thing they teach you in a good history course is that you must
always consider the biases of your sources.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry