Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <7800813@inmet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 29-Nov-85 14:05:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.7800813 Posted: Fri Nov 29 14:05:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 20:49:41 EST References: <7559@ucla-cs.UUCP> Lines: 192 Nf-ID: #R:ucla-cs:-755900:inmet:7800813:000:10435 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Nov 29 14:05:00 1985 >/* Written 7:25 am Nov 28, 1985 by jim@ISM780 in inmet:net.politics */ >>Oh *I* get it! Jan is not intellectually honest if he advocates >>something on the best information he has! Of COURSE! Isn't this >>more than a little silly, Jim? You're accusing someone of intellectual >>dishonesty because he doesn't know information that I doubt you know, but >>holds opinions different from yours. Jan WOULD be intellectually dishonest >>if he were deliberately ignoring some fact, but not if he fails to dig >>it out (he may have other things to do). > >Most of the questions asked pertained directly to support of Jan's position. >Taking such a position without having the facts to support it, >that is taking a position based on unsupported bias, is I think reasonably >labeled intellectually dishonest. I call on Jan to support his position >*with facts* that we have an *obligation* to support the resistance. But he's NOT taking a position without facts -- he's taking a position without (as he concedes you have) a "mountain" of facts. >>The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're >>quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT >>should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever* >>be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT >>of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess, >>funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to >>provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of. Sauce for >>the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly >>undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against >>it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt) >>like. > >How the hell do you know what I am in favor of, or what I know? I don't! I phrased it as a bet and a guess for this very reason! >Now you are surely being intellectually dishonest, arguing against a strawman. It's even more vaporous than that! I'm arguing against a hypothesis, against a guess, for purposes of illustration. >Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't think I have >enough information to argue for them? Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you shouldn't support positions, then it seems to me to be only consistent to agree that if you don't know enough you shouldn't vote for taxation. >From my *values*, not from information, >I favor children being educated, even if it means they grow up to build bombs >to destroy us, I favor the destitute not starving or freezing to death >even if it means increasing the chances of having my throat slit, >and I favor a society with good roads, maintained buildings, >and a healthy environment with preserved natural habitats, even if >it means fewer of the technological toys I love. I am quite open >to possible ways to achieve these ends. I am well aware of a >wide range of weaknesses in the ways these things are being done. >I can see what the effects of the current policies are; if >someone offers a different solution, I certainly wouldn't reject >it, but I would ask for analysis before *supporting* it. I am >familiar with libertarian arguments and am willing to respond to >them. I refuse to take a position without being willing to >defend it. And I demand the same of others. Check -- I'm glad to hear it. But have you ever VOTED for any of these things being done by the state? (It is not, of course, my place to monitor the voting -- the question is rhetorical) It would seem to me that this would constitute taking a position to about the same extent Jan did. Jan offered an opinion on netnews. *IF* you voted for any of these things (and I don't say you did) then you bolstered a government solution to one of the social problems involved. Now it may well be the case that you NEVER voted for any of these things, or did so not agreeing that a vote constitutes "taking a stand". I'm using you as a sort of rhetorical backboard here, merely to point out that IF intellectual honesty should prevent one from taking any stands one cannot support with documentation and analysis, AND voting may fairly be construed as "taking a position", THEN voting for such an issue as a school levy without a thorough understanding of (say) 42 or so linked questions about schooling, the economy, the makeup of the schools (teacher, parent, and administrators) is intellectually dishonest according to the criterion of being unable to support a position you've taken. >>>Of course, I don't really believe that you have honestly considered these >>>questions or would be willing to honestly examine them. > >>Keep calm, but one way to help Jan examine them would be to >>post your own answers to ALL those questions. Since a great many of them >>dealt with contingencies, I suspect you won't be able to answer all >>of them with anything like authority. Is it intellectually honest of >>you to require answers of the opposing side that can't be tested? > I'll leave you and Jan to the intricacies of Nicaraguan affairs now; my real interest is in the issue of intellectual honesty (and Mom and apple pie!) in "net.politics*". Just to answer briefly other points you make, but which are intertwined with the Nicaraguan discussion: It's quite proper to require that facts be known before a claim can be made, but, for example, "to claim we sold the Nicaraguans down the river needs substantiation" is true enough, but non-quantitative. You'll certainly find men of good will who will disagree on definitions. Congratulations, by the way, on all your reading! I could never keep up! Do you REALLY read those things as often as they come out (you didn't say how often, but wouldn't that be the implication?)? Impressive! Oh yes -- >>>Instead you >>>produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, >>>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >>>that such policies can produce. >> >>I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines >>in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening. Nor, have I heard you mention >>the suspension of civil liberties. Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and >>again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose..... > >Mention them as support for *what*? Have I denied them? Am I unaware of >them? Do you hold that they are sufficient reason to support the Contras? Not at all! But your point is that Jan "made no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings" that supporting the contras can produce. I've seen YOU make no reference to the degradation and death that forced relocation and suspension of human rights can produce, so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur if the Contras are supported. My point is that you've no right to insist Jan do it if you've failed to do it (unless you're offering him a trade?) >Does that help alleviate the suspension or prevent a recurrence of the >relocation? How can such support do anything but make it worse, up until >(and not unlikely past) either cessation of the support or overthrow of the >Sandinistas? NOT my point at all! You implied that Jan should be doing something YOU haven't been doing (making reference to the degradation and death of real human beings....) and I am merely pointing out that YOU haven't done this. >Maybe it isn't intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is just an >unfamiliarity the forms of logical connection. What statement would you have >liked me to make? That we shouldn't support the Contras because those things >did not happen? But that isn't my position, is it? Please answer this! One >of us is making a rhetorical error somewhere. It it is me, show me how. I think it is you, but I don't think you did it out of intellectual dishonesty, but out of carelessness. Jan didn't make reference to the "degradation and death" associated with supporting the contras, but YOU didn't make any such reference to the "degradation and death" brought about by their opponents. >I >am almost certain I understand you position. It is that the world is black >and white. Jan is against the Nicaraguans. I disagree with him, so I must >be for them. Since I am for them, I must favor everything they have ever >done. I cannot see how else you could reach your sauce for the goose >statement otherwise. Interesting. I've already stated that I'm against any government intervention for or against the Contras. (I think the repeal of the Logan Act would be fun, so that US citizens could support whomever they chose). As I've explained above, it seems to me to be inconsistent of you to demand that Jan talk about degradation and death unless you're willing to do this also. I assume you are (as I say, I suspect this to be an error rather than anything else) but you HAVEN'T, so it seems to me to be strange that you refer to Jan's lack of such discussion as if it were bad because it didn't talk about degradation and death. >>The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to >>mention it. Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the >>current government than there would be under the Contras. You have >>some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of >>quantifying "degradation")? > >The point is the degradation and death at the hands of the Contras *now*. >That *is* the subject; Jan favors support of people who are shooting >and blowing things up. That means death and degradation. Some of >such is documented. Even if you are not familiar with the documentation, >you can reasonably assume that there is *some*, can you not? Sure! So tell me, have the Sandinistas NOT done this? >What *evidence* of such death at the hands of the Sandinistas can you show? Let's not forget "Degradation". The Sandinistas have suspended civil rights, and forcibly relocated some aborigines. They have forcibly censored the press, and I vaguely recall reading that violence was used in various of these actions. Certainly degradation has resulted. If you are CLAIMING that all this stuff was done without any degradation or death, then I'm fascinated (I won't ask you to prove a negative, simply to state that "I've read all this stuff I claim to read, and found not ONE reasonably substantiated death").