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!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <39000038@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 09:27:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000038
Posted: Sun Dec  1 09:27:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 20:20:30 EST
References: <7559@ucla-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 361
Nf-ID: #R:ucla-cs:-755900:ISM780B:39000038:000:20924
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Dec  1 09:27:00 1985


>/* Written  2:05 pm  Nov 29, 1985 by nrh@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */
>>/* 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.

You are misreading; of course Jan has facts; I am asking him to *support*
his position *with* facts.  The issue isn't how many facts he has.
It is, do his facts *support* his opinion?  If so, I feel he has a
responsibility to us, or at least himself, to show how, rather than just
restating his opinion.

>>>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!

But your "sauce for the goose" only follows if your guess is correct,
but your rhetoric doesn't acknowledge this.  And you *accuse* me of
selectively not arguing against things I like, without being able to
substantiate the claim, aside from the fact that that is universal behavior
but is *not* what I was accusing Jan of.  Rather, what he *does* argue for
he hasn't justified.  Have you heard me argue *for* taxes?  Most of your
paragraph above is much stronger than "bet" and "guess".

>>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.

Your "illustration" contains explicit accusations.  I find this line
disingenuous.  However, I acknowledge that illustration is an element
of your intent.

>>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.

I only vote when I feel I have enough information to yield a reasonably high
probability that one solution is better than another.  I was once approached
at the door for a ballot survey.  On a number of issues I claimed no opinion;
the poller *insisted* I must have an opinion; I insisted not.  She said I was
the only person she had talked to who had no opinion.  Don't *assume* that
I am guilty!  Don't use a strawman assumption of my guilt to diffuse my claims,
the validity of which are independent of my guilt anyway.

Also, you are indulging in a fallacy.  A vote is not the same as advocacy.
Since to vote yes or no or not at all are all actions with consequences,
one *must* choose one such consequence; one chooses that which seems best.

I asked why you would have me argue against taxation, and you did not answer
that, unless your claim is that not voting for taxation is the same as
arguing against it, a strange claim but one you seem to be making.

I do have an advocacy in re Nicaragua: to not violate OAS conventions and
the general rule of international and morality by interfering in the
affairs of another sovereign state without extreme cause; in particular
overthrowing an established government is a clear and sever violation.
I do not think that supporting *not* overthrowing a state is symmetrical
in its need for factual basis with supporting *to* overthrow a state.

>>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.

As above; voting yes and voting no both have consequences.  If I suspect,
based on evidence and analysis, that one is preferable over the other then
I have an obligation to vote in that way even in the face of partial
information.  Of course I also have an obligation to inform myself as best
I can within normal constraints.  If I do not feel qualified to judge, or
feel that my confidence in my information is poor enough as to risk
interfering with the votes of those more knowledgeable (not too likely in a
general election!) then I abstain from a vote.  I reject your claim of
analogy.  If you still feel it is valid, please elaborate.  Jan made a strong
claim.  Just how strong a claim that a course is correct is a vote for that
course?

>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.

I agree with the subjunctive statement (IF ...) but not with the "AND voting
..." part of the premise, and thus not with the statement.
Remember that Jan said that we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to support the
Contras, not that he suspects that the world would be better off if we did.
Even if he did not make so strong a statement, the vehemence with which
the pro-Contra stand is taken, and the name calling applied on both sides
is clearly at a very different level of advocacy as a vote.
This is not to say that issues on which people vote are not strongly
advocated, but the advocacy and the vote are different, and you were
talking about me voting, not about me advocating.  Voting and taking a
stand are *independent*, regardless of how often they are asscocieted.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am not claiming I have never advocated without
analysis, or that I have never taken a stand on an issue without properly
understanding it.  I am not claiming that I am free of all intellectual
dishonesty or that I should not be criticized for it; that would be
intellectually dishonest (:-).  I welcome such criticism where it applies,
since the whole reason to value intellectual honesty is because we value
truth.  But showing that I have been dishonest does not *invalidate* my
claims or *excuse* anyone else of such dishonesty.  I do not buy the concept
"Who are you to talk?", which just leads to a social framework of mutually
supported immorality.  I am perfectly aware that by putting the issue on the
table I open myself to scrutiny.

>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.

Granted; I only ask that Jan substantiate it within his own set of values.
If he can show that aid to Nicaraguan industry after the revolution was
channeled into the hands of Sandinista extremists and helped them consolidate
their hold and led them to restrict Nicaraguan freedoms, then I would accept
his phrase with the understanding that it is emotionally exaggerated
and mischaracterizes the Sandinistas as being synonymous with the extreme
factions, although I certainly would not accept his conclusion about
the specifics of our ensuing obligation.  However, I think it is easier
to show that it is support of the Contras that had exactly that effect.

>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!

I thought the range of items would make it clear I do not read all of them
regularly; I only subscribe to some.  However, I spend a lot of time
at the magazine rack and usually purchase those which have major articles
of interest to me.  I do read A LOT.  It does interfere with other activities.
As does responding here.

>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?)

But you miss the point.  What do I advocate that could be seen as producing
same, unless it is *not* overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, which
could only get there rather indirectly?  I *do not* advocate forced
relocation or suspension of rights (although I recognize the latter as often
being necessary during wartime, and even when not necessary still is a
consequence.  Was the forced relocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry
during WWII a justification for the Japanese to attack the U.S.?)  Do you
really see them as equivalent?  If you do, then I will concede to your
request: not overthrowing the Sandinistas could allow them to carry out
policies which lead to death and degradation; it is possible (but not
demonstrated!) that it would be at higher levels than the combined effect of
overthrowing them and the actions of those who would follow.  We know of
policies of this sort already occuring: forceable relocation of the Miskito
Indians with little regard for their culture (but they have been re-relocated
and the Sandinista government has admitted fault in strongly self-critical
terms) and restrictions of the freedom of press and interference with the
actions of other political parties (although under fire from the Contras with
allegedly 50-60% of spending going toward defense, and even so there is
little evidence of curfews or suspension of due process); it is possible that
stopping the fighting would lead to tighter restrictions whereas, if the
Contras take over, even though many of them are a bunch of cutthroats (that
is well-documented!), the democratic elements outside of the Sandinistas
would establish a stable and open government, even though there is no reason
that I can see, given the history of Nicaragua and the area, to think that
the odds favor it.  Is that the sort of thing you want?  Now that I have
satisfied your requirement, I again ask that Jan make some mention, in light
of his rather glib statement that we have an obligation to the Nicaraguans
(which ones?  The ones currently being killed?) to support the Contra
terrorists (oh sorry, I wasn't supposed to use that word), of the realities
of the IMMEDIATE, not HYPOTHETICAL, effects of such policies on the bodies,
plantations, farms, power systems, and other institutions of Nicaraguans,
including their freedom of *choice* (do you recall them voting to have the
U.S. support the Contras?  What sort of elitist paternalistic obligation
is this? [questions for Jan, not nrh]).

You say
>so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur
>if the Contras are supported.
"may"?  The whole point is that the *nature* of the Contras is violence.
That is not the *nature* of non-intervention, which I advocate, even if it
*could* be the result.  I would not ask Jan to mention death and degradation
if he were talking about *economic* sanctions.  This sort of "this may",
"that may" argument really is *not* intellectually honest.  Almost anything
*can* happen, but some things are *known* to happen (yes relocation is known
to happen, but the overall results of not overthrowing the Sandinistas
relative to overthrowing them is not *known*).

>>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.

Again, Jan should have done it *because of the position he supports*.
I didn't feel I supported that sort of position.  For those who do feel that,
I responded above.

>>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.

You didn't answer me.  What statement should I have made?  Can you give me
an exact hypothetical quote, and show me where in the dialogue I should have
inserted it?  Remember that what *I* said was that the *question* was whether
we had the *right* to destroy the Nicaraguan government and people.
The question is *not* whether the Sandinistas have the right to relocate
Miskitos.  Everyone (even the public position of the Sandinistas) agrees on
that point.  If Jan proposes a *solution* that involves violence, then I
think he needs to make the nature of the violence explicit.  Anyway, if he
doesn't, I'll do it for him.

>>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).

Your treatment *seems*  to imply that the opposite of supporting death and
degradation by the Contras is supporting death and degradation by the
Sandinistas.  Since I do not support aiding anyone to kill anyone else
while Jan does, I don't see how your "sauce" argument applies.

>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.

I think I have now answered this.

>>>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?

AGAIN, I do not support those policies of the Sandinistas!!!
Jan *does* support the Contras.  The whole *point* of the Contras
is to kill and blow things up.  You cannot support the Contras
without supporting killing and blowing things up.  You *can*
support non-intervention without supporting killing and blowing things up,
as is the case with the Contadora nations.  and you *can* oppose the
Sandinistas without killing and blowing things up, as do most of the
opposition groups in Nicaragua and many "liberal" and centrist
politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere.
So, why do you ask the questin you do, unless it is from a Manichean view?

>>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").

Where have I ever claimed such a thing?  Where have I been an apologist
for violent policies?  Jan is an apologist for violent policies.
(Or would anyone argue that the Contras are using peaceful means?)

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)