Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Amalgam (long) Retort (longer) Message-ID: <2111@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 20:24:20 EST Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2111 Posted: Thu Feb 20 20:24:20 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 02:20:53 EST References: <2413@reed.UUCP> <2070@watdcsu.UUCP> <2486@reed.UUCP> Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Distribution: na Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 55 Summary: In article <2486@reed.UUCP> chism@reed.UUCP (Christine N Chism) writes: >In article <2070@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >>> which others still succumb. Once the pressure ceases, women >>> can live their lives any way they want, apart from the >>> stereotypical role models. Until then, women are forced >>> to live either within these confined roles, or in defiance >>> of them. Greater freedom does not yet exist. >>> >>> Forgive me for pitching into you like this but who are you to limit >>> my alternatives? ... >> >> Eric was simply describing what he >>thinks is the way things are. If I tell you that you can't jump off a >>cliff and fly by flapping your arms, am I guilty of limiting your >>alternatives? > >I am sorry if I appeared to dive precipitously down Eric's >throat. I did not intend offense, only discussion. >I think, however, that it is dangerous to accept without >examination his portrayal of the situation. What I was reacting to was the disapproving tone of the question "who are you to limit my alternatives?" Eric made a statement about what he believed is the state of the world, and the first sentence of your response was heavily loaded with moral disapproval. Then you went on to examine the accuracy of his beliefs. It was mainly the disapproval I was reacting to. If you had skipped the moral disapproval and went directly to examining the accuracy of his beliefs I wouldn't have responded. The moral disapproval is a form of what I call the "amoral scumbag" argument. Its most blatant form is "only an amoral scumbag would believe that!" Typically, the victim apologizes profusely and revises his/her beliefs, even if, as often happens, no evidence has been presented on the basis of which to change those beliefs. Most people would rather change their opinions than be thought ill of. I'm not singling you out, everybody does this, and everybody is vulnerable to this type of argument. But most feminists use it a lot, by calling anybody whose belief offends them a "sexist", or an MCP, or accusing them of "blaming the victim". I made a statement in another article that I wanted to offend and insult feminists. Their (at least those who make the most noise) heavy dependence on this form of argument is a major reason why I wanted to do so. (I'm not going to engage in a program of annoying and offending feminists after all, because I think if I have a point to make being deliberately offensive won't help me to make it. Also, being artistically and skillfully offensive is too time-consuming. Bird Dog's form of offensiveness is simply too easy -- you don't score any points for it.) -- David Canzi "I wept because I had no woman, until I met a man who had no hands."