Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.flame
Subject: The Koenig Maneuver
Message-ID: <815@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 13:41:30 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.815
Posted: Wed Apr 24 13:41:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 05:34:56 EST
References: <5185@cbscc.UUCP> <3621@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 109
Xref: watmath net.abortion:1484 net.flame:9509

Andrew Koenig has invented, or is trying to perfect, a new
debating technique.  Let's call it the "wild leap," or, if
you want to sound more scholarly, the "remote associates question."
Take a statement on subject A.  Find an element in the statement
which bears some vague resemblance (the more superficial, the
better) to another subject, and ask an absurd rhetorical question
about subject B.

This technique doesn't actually add anything (like information)
to the debate (but it probably isn't intended to), but is does
show remarkable creativity (in finding tenuous links between
scarcely related subjects).

How ought one to respond to the Koenig Maneuver?  Answering
the question on its merits ("No") is bound to be ineffective --
after all, the asker knows it's a rhetorical question, and
that the responder is unlikely to believe the suggested absurdity.
Attempting to show the tenuousness of the relationship between the
two subjects would probably be counterproductive, as it distracts
the participants from the original topic.  I suggest that the
best way to respond is to say, "How clever!  The Koenig maneuver
at its finest!  No one else would have thought that those two
subjects could be related."  This acknowledges the creativity
of the one using the technique, without conceding that anything
has been proven or refuted (for such is not the purpose of the
technique).  After this response, discussion of the real topic
can proceed in the normal (?) fashion.

Example:

> > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from
> > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling
> > less than 40 mph.  

Here, subject A is the risk of injury from motor vehicles (in
the context of the debate on whether mandatory seat belt laws
should be enacted).

> Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than
> 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed
> in an automobile accident?  What if I lie to my car and tell
> it it's far from home when it really isn't?  (I know it's not
> nice to lie to cars -- this is just a thought experiment)

Subject B is a (one assumes fictional) car with volition and
sensibilities (which might be offended if its owner told it a
lie).  The common thread (and I do mean a thin thread) is that
cars, or motor vehicles, do appear in both.  There is a variation
on the wild leap, in that the entire subject B is absurd, rather
than the statement about the subject.

Another example:

> > If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece
> > of real estate.  If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with
> > other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner.

In this case, subject A is the right of the government to restrict the
use of the roads, on the grounds that the government paid for them
(again, in the context of the mandatory seat belt debate).

> In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions
> it pleases on people who use public roads.

Note that the restatement is slightly ambigous, in that it is not clear
whether restrictions can be imposed at all times, or only on the use
of the public road.  This ambiguity facilatates the wild leap, below.

> Hmmm...does that mean that the government has the right to say that
> if you use a public road, you are deemed to have given them permission,
> say, to search your home for evidence of any illegal activity?

Subject B, apparently, is the constitutional right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure.  The only connection is the word
"right," which was introduced in the above restatement.

Third and last example (from net.abortion -- apologies to net.flame
readers):

> Paul Dubuc says:

> > Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes
> > sexual behaviour.  You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond
> > the realm of individual choice.  I believe that people generally *choose*
> > of have sex.  If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that
> > goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible.

Here, subject A is the thesis that having a choice implies accepting
a responsibility, this time in the context of the abortion debate.

> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I
> might be involved in an automobile accident.  Are you seriously
> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading
> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment?

Subject B is medical treatment of an injury.  Here, the tenuous
connection is the veiled equating of abortion, a medical procedure
(according to some) which terminates a life, with the treatment of
injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending, of course,
on the severity of the injury).

To summarize: the Koenig Maneuver is truly an entertaining
(if not edifying) technique.  It shows creativity.  Keep up
the good work.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys

PS: Anyone recognize the style of this missive?