Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: inappropriate debating tactics
Message-ID: <1011@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 09:38:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1011
Posted: Fri May 31 09:38:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 02:45:35 EDT
References: <682@mtx5d.UUCP> <5306@fortune.UUCP> <588@sfmag.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 53

>>In this case though, I would argue that the author was attempting
>>to show that racism and sexism (particularly orientationism) are
>>very similar.  Anti-semitic tirades are ugly and should be opposed
>>by all reasonable people.  Anti-homosexual tirades are just as ugly,
>>and should be opposed by the same reasonable people. 

> The "reasoning" in the straw-man approach was:
> 
> 	Antisemitism is bad. (ASSUMPTION)
> 	Anti-homosexuality is bad. (ASSUMPTION)
> 	Anti-homosexuality is like antisemitism. (ASSUMPTION)
> 	If you are anti-homosexual you are like an antisemite. (CONCLUSION)
> 	Since antisemitism is bad anti-homosexuality is bad. (CIRCULAR
>		CONCLUSION)
> 
> Note that the final conclusion is the same as the initial assumption. 

The REAL line of reasoning was (and is) as follows:

	Antisemitism is hatred for Jews.  [DEFINITION]
	Antihomosexuality is hatred for homosexuals.  [DEFINITION]
	Samet dislikes hatred for Jews (only because of self-interest?)
						[ASSUMPTION]
	Samet preaches hatred for homosexuals.  [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE]
	Samet feels there is no double standard or hypocrisy in saying
		"It's NOT O.K. to hate Jews, but it IS O.K. to hate
			homosexuals."  [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE]
	Samet feels there is some sort of difference between hatred
		for different groups, feeling that it is all right to
		hate some but not all right to hate others, though he
		cannot produce evidence to support this conclusion.
	A Nazi/anti-Semite/bigot of any variety feels there is some sort of
		difference between hatred for different groups (e.g.,
		his own should not be hated, other groups can and should
		be), though he cannot support evidence to support this
		conclusion.
	Question:  Is Samet's position ANY DIFFERENT from that of the bigot?

>>It is sometimes
>>usefull to show people how the same sort of "logic" that they use
>>to condem others can be applied to themselves also.

> I did not use any sort of false logic to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. 
> I simply stated the fact that the Torah considers this to be  abominable.
> R. Rosen was  therefore not mirroring any of my logic. He was simply
> camoflaging his arbitrary assumption via the guise of a logical argument.

Oh.  (The discourse above clearly contradicts this and shows it to be blatantly
false.  There are no arbitrary assumptions except on the part of Mr. Samet,
who assumes the veracity of certain books.)
-- 
"Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr