Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.politics
Subject: Re: privatization of education
Message-ID: <1129@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Aug-86 13:29:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1129
Posted: Mon Aug 18 13:29:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Aug-86 01:16:19 EDT
References: <977@kontron.UUCP> <1125@cybvax0.UUCP> <1001@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.sci:1522 net.politics:18411

In article <1001@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no
> > > > good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's
> > > > lack of rational conviction."  Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
> > > 
> > > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and
> > > under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated.  By Bertrand 
> > > Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction
> > > behind it.
> > 
> > Ah, Clayton.  Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument.
> 
> Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions
> held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or
> not?  I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's
> statement is reactionary to emotional positions.  Now you claim it was
> a rhetorical argument.  Which is it?

I don't think Russell's statement is false, except that I wouldn't have used
the word "always".  I consider it an extremely good indicator.  That's why
I used the term "rhetorical".

Your notion of "pointed out... blatantly false" is a bit warped.  All you did
was attempt to provide a counter-example, which I disagreed with.

Your usage of the word "reactionary" seems inappropriate: I think that the
statement gives emotional positions the credit they are due: extremely little.

> > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction
> > behind it.  Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate
> > belief.  Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was
> > a free-market phenominon.  :-)
> 
> I demand an immediate retraction of this libel.  Show ONE SINGLE POSTING
> I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT
> BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT.

I can tell what basis you have for a lawsuit: nothing valid.  This is
another example of where an application of Russel's statement is correct.

I view this as a mere strategem to make me accept your counter-example
uncritically.

> > A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth.
> > 
> > Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
> 
> First you take a position.  Then I point out it is untenable, and you
> try to claim you weren't serious in the first place.

I leave it to you to figure out which sentences were facetious and which
were serious, and where ambiguities lie.  That should show you how little
footing you have for a lawsuit.

Twit.  :-)

[I will be away in Georgia for three weeks.  Responses to my notes will
expire here during that period: mail me copies if you want me to see them.]
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh