Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ? Message-ID: <39000025@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 14:32:00 EST Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000025 Posted: Sun Nov 24 14:32:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:06:33 EST References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP> Lines: 75 Nf-ID: #R:inmet:7800672:ISM780B:39000025:000:3684 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Nov 24 14:32:00 1985 >/* Written 2:55 pm Nov 21, 1985 by janw@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */ >>[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >>In article <7800672@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >>> The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" >>> of Nov 29, page 10: >>> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country >>> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or >>> 78.4 per cent. >>> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since >>> 1980 has gone to women, not men." > >>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >>hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >>reasoned conclusion from this quotation. > >Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- >lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. Obvious that it was your conclusion, perhaps. An obvious conclusion from the quote, hardly. I love this "may be". It is a true statement. So would "may not be". In books like "Chariot of the Gods" or "Devil's Triangle" you find lots of lines like "Perhaps we have been visited by aliens with powerful technologies." or "Is it possible that there is a force here beyond the current understanding of science?". I forget the name of this little rhetorical technique, but the intent is to mislead by insinuation. Dangerous little minds will take your your empty statement as a *conclusion*. You are waging a disinformation campaign. >Of course there are other factors involved than govt policy, so >the conclusion is merely an inductive conjecture. Inductive conjecture? Have you ever heard the term "intellectual honesty"? Don't you think your inductive process would be a bit more valid if it took into account, just for instance, the increase in the percentage of jobs that are in the service sector and the percentage of such jobs that are held by women? >That is why I added the (?). Like in the "Is it possible ...?" case that is ignored by small minds who are just looking for something that agrees with their beliefs. And surely you weren't aiming your comments at people you knew wouldn't buy them? >But if you wished to accuse me of a logical fal- >lacy, it should've been "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", rather than >"non-sequitur". Gee, and he's eddicated, too. So is it your practice and intent to post notes with conscious rhetorical fallacies? >Now please re-read your response calmly - and I know you can be >logical when you try. What do GI casualties have to do with >the text *or* the title of my note ? Watch that knee, Mike: >it jerked in mid-word! Right between Reagan- and -omics. You *must* be kidding. You post something that occurred during the Reagan administration, with a "conjectured" but totally unjustified (by you or the quote) implication that a specific policy not only was responsible, but was better than another policy which wasn't even treated by the data (affirmative action is still in effect despite Meese's attempts to dismantle it, and you offered no data indicating the change in the number of women in the workplace since a.a. went into effect). So Mike responds with a couple of his own (dead servicemen and DoD waste), also unsupported and arguably p.h.e.p.h. You don't see a valid connection? You want put your *method* of presentation of information out of bounds of discussion? No dice. You said elsewhere that you agree with the principle that your conclusion, even if correct, is not trustworthy if it wasn't reached through impartial analysis. So put it into practice. Intellectual honesty. Think about it. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)