Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!RED.RUTGERS.EDU!mcgrew
From: mcgrew@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: Bias
Message-ID: <12233234378.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 22:03:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12233234378.16.MCGREW
Posted: Sat Aug 23 22:03:27 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Aug-86 03:04:13 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mcgrew@red.rutgers.edu
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 110
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU

[ Once again I take to the netwaves to argue about something or
other... - CWM] 

        me:
         [ Well, I have noticed that people think print is biased,
        I've seen the letters.

    Keith:
     Certainly print is biased.  The Bible doesn't give equal time to
    Darwin.  The Communist Manifesto gives short shrift to Adam Smith.
    Ayn Rand clearly disagrees with Karl Marx. :-)

... a vacuous counter-argument.  The original context was 'liberal
bias', as you well know.

        me:
          The original point was that giving guns to everyone would be
          dangerous for a lot of reasons ...

    Keith:
     I don't advocate GIVING guns to anyone.  I advocate letting
     individual adults choose for themselves whether or not to be
     armed.

... another vaccuous counter-arguement.  How they get the guns has
nothing to do with the point.

        me:
         - one of which is that most people don't know how or when to
        use them.

    Keith:
     Probably because they aren't armed and don't need to know.
     Before most people had cars, most people didn't know how to
     drive.  Was this an good argument against letting people have
     cars?

... say what?  You're saying that everyone who will get a gun will
instantly know how to use one?  The many people who have them NOW
don't know how to use them... Knowing that the sharp end of the bullet
goes toward the front and where the trigger is is not enough, sorry.

   Keith:
    I would support warning labels for guns, pointing out how
    often untrained gun ownership ends in disaster.  I would
    support similar labels for cars.

... you're saying people don't know that guns are dangerous?  Give me
a personal break...  Using a gun properly is not something you learn
by watching Miami Vice.

        me:
       ... There are a lot incredibly complex of reasons we lost in
       Vietnam.

   Keith:
    Complexity is the last refuge of someone losing an argument.
 
...and oversimplification the refuge of those who don't know what they
are talking about.  Sorry, but there are a lot of things that are
complex, and waving your hands at problems and pronouncing them to be
a certain way doesn't necessarily mean anything.

      me:
       That the Cong and the NVA had guns was the reason there was a
      war at all, not the reason we lost.

    Keith:
     Well, if they were unarmed, I suppose it wouldn't have been
     called a war, nor would France and the US have gotten involved.
     It WAS the reason we lost, if only in the sense that we would not
     have lost had they not been armed.

... we can carry this into endless digressions, but I won't bother.
We can talk about the root causes of the war, going back to the
Chinese and the north-vs-south issues of a long time ago.  Its silly,
and it doesn't prove a thing.  Go read up on the Phillipine
insurrection.

   Keith:
     Of course, whoever wins retroactively calls themselves the
    legitimate government of the time, so there is a lot of bias
    there.  Like the tales of stranded sailors who were pushed to
    shore by dolphins - obvious proof of dolphin intelligence, right?
    After all, there are no tales of stranded sailors being pushed
    AWAY from shore by dolphins!

... say what?  You've gone one allegory too far into left field on
this one... 

        me:
       ... Dozens of governments are currently fighting wars with  
       internal dissenters.  Does the fact that the anti-government
       forces have guns stop the governments?

    Keith:
     No.  Did the fact that George Washington's troops have guns stop
     the British?  Not at first.  Was he an internal dissenter, or a
     great hero?  The latter, of course.  Mainly because he won.

... say what?  What does what you say have to say have to do with what
I said?  It sounds like you agree with me, then say something about
George Washington?  You're out in the left-field bleachers now.

Charles
-------
-------