Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb Message-ID: <581@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Sep-86 11:49:33 EDT Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.581 Posted: Mon Sep 15 11:49:33 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 02:39:26 EDT References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <571@dg_rtp.UUCP> <1084@hoptoad.uucp> Lines: 114 Xref: linus net.sf-lovers:15305 talk.politics.misc:155 Summary: More Maroney baloney. > tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) >> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) >> The quote >>explores the hypothesis that a nuclear war would cull the "unfit", and >>that hardy, freedomloving folk might selectively survive. (Even so, it >>is worth noting that again he did *not* say that the net effect would be >>beneficial.) > YOU LIE!!! Good greif, Tim. Take it easy. You're getting spittle all over your terminal. And you're wrong on this point, to boot. First, very trivially, almost every time Hugh Farnham proposes a "benefit" of nuclear war, he equivocates, saying "could be", "might be", and so on. And every time Tim requotes (other than the reproduction of the quote from the book), Tim removes these equivocations. So, in a trivial sense, I am not lying, and Hugh didn't say what Tim keeps saying he said. More fundamentally, the analysis that Hugh uses to show his hypothesized "benefit" makes it clear that he is comparing nuclear war to some *other* disaster that would kill hundreds of millions of people. Thus, he is talking about a *relative* benefit of a disaster that kills millions of "unfit" people relative to killing millions of people completely at random. I'm appending the original quotation for those who didn't save it, so they can see for themselves. Further, my subsequent argument didn't depend on my parenthetical remark about what Hugh Farnham was saying. That argument is just as valid if we assume that Tim is right about Hugh's statements, which was why I made it a parenthetical remark in the first place, and *not* part of my argument. Let's see what Tim left out of his "rebuttal". > It is highly questionable whether any quote eight paragraphs long can be > reasonably said to be "out of context". Hardly. It is *trivial* to show that this quote was butchered by removal from its context, and that Hugh Farnham is *not* Heinlein's mouthpiece character in this quote. First, the context is a novel that details in no uncertain terms the evil results of a nuclear war. The few survivors, we find out, are enslaved and bred for docile servility, sex, and meat for hundreds of years. The quote stating that the US might reap some benefit comes before this result is revealed, and is thus out of its proper context. Second, since the events in the book are controlled directly by Heinlein, when what some character says conflicts with those events, that character cannot be echoing Heinlein's thoughts. The "benefits" Hugh Farnham hypothesizes (mostly increased intelligence and freedom for the survivors) are *directly* and *repeatedly* contradicted by the subsequent events. Hugh Farnham *clearly* erected a straw man, which Heinlein then demolishes in the remainder of the novel. The fact that Tim, for the purposes of his rebuttal, chopped off my argument at a trivial in-passing point that wasn't part of what followed might well have Charlie Martin spinning in his netnode. Charlie vouched for Tim's character in an earlier posting. Waddaya say, Charlie? Still think this... this hypocritical hoptoad is "honest"? > Warning! Dogmatic responses will be ignored, or, more likely, insulted. Oh dear, oh dear. Tim will think this posting is "dogmatic" and will insult me. Wherecaniturn, whocanicall? I know! I'll take it to *Court* !!!!! STUPID PEOPLE'S COURT !!!!! ( Judge Moriarty Wapner, presiding. Pat. pend. Void where prohibited. This end up. Your mileage may vary. North Carolina residents add 10% sales tax. (That's not the tax rate in NC, but I pocket the difference, y'see...) ) You listening Jeff? Can Mighty Judge Wapner spare a court date? -- The seeds of crime bear bitter fruit. --- Dick Tracy -- The quote from _Farhnam's_Freehold_ He frowned. "Barbara, I'm not as sad over what has happened as you are. It might be be good for us. I don't mean us six; I mean our country." She looked startled. "How?" "Well - it's hard to take the long view when you are crouching in a shelter and wondering how long you can hold out. But - Barbara, I've worried for years about our country. It seems to me that we have been breeding slaves - and I believe in freedom. This war may have turned the tide. This may be the first war in history which kills the stupid rather than the bright and able - where it makes any distinction." "How do you figure that, Hugh?" "Well, wars have always been hardest on the best young men. This time the boys in the service are as safe or safer than civilians. And of civilians those who used their heads and made preparations stand a far better chance. Not every case, but on the average, and that will improve the breed. When it's over, things will be tough, and that will improve the breed still more. For years the surest way of surviving has been to be utterly worthless and breed a lot of worthless kids. All that will change." She nodded thoughtfully. "That's standard genetics. But it seems cruel." "It *is* cruel. But no government has yet been able to repeal natural laws, though they keep trying." She shivered in spite of the heat. "I suppose you're right. No, I *know* you're right." -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw