Xref: utzoo sci.bio:891 soc.men:2579 soc.women:9192
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!aurora!labrea!agate!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!robinson
From: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Rape: a genetic catastrophe
Message-ID: <22888@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 5 Feb 88 08:53:24 GMT
References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP> <373@rruxa.UUCP> <4371@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley
Lines: 62
Summary: Cheap shots and sleazy reason.

I don't have any more patience for the kind of thing that follows, which is
why I left.  However, as long as events temporarily compel me to read this
group (soc.women), I will undoubtably encounter this sort of thing that I
cannot, in good conscience, leave unanswered.

In article <4371@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes:
>>Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I
>>feel that I'm being asked to repeat myself).  If you get bored, zoom
>>ahead to reason number 8.
>
>...ZOOM...
>
>>8.  My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape
>>    position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence
>>    against women in western culture...
>>
>
>Your main reason for arguing against the hypothesis
>(hereinafter called GBR for brevity) is that you believe that people
>will act a certain way if they believe it, and you don't want them to
>act that way.  So your arguments are, in effect, motivated by a desire
>to control other people's actions by influencing their beliefs.
>[...]
>So whether or not GBR is true is beside the point: the important
>thing is to make sure that people don't believe it.
>[...]
>I believe
>that you are 100% sincere in your belief that there is no genetic basis
>for rape, and that one of your grounds for reaching this conclusion was
>a consideration of how other people will behave if they believe it.

You accuse M. Muller of committing the pragmatic fallacy, and you use this
in a rather shabby and obvious attempt to impune his evidence.  Why the hell
are you so motivated to impune arguments against GBR as to resort to these
cheap tactics?

M. Muller said, "my main reason for arguing."  Not believing.  Arguing.
Items 1-7 are reasons for not believing GBR.  They are sound and persuasive.
Item 8 does not have to do with why it is false, but why one should argue
against it.

You state that one of the reasons M. Muller believes that GBR is not
true is because of the negative consequences of having people believe it, in
other words, the pragmatic fallacy.  There is no justification or support for
such an accusation.

M. Muller provided sound and convincing arguments for why GBR is false.
However, GBR, unlike Creationism and the Tooth Fairy, has severe negative
consequences.  It is not a harmless myth or meaningless misconception.  It
is not the kind of drivel that one can, with clear conscience, permit to
spread unchecked.  It is not because GBR is dangerous that one should believe
it to be false, rather it is because it is false and dangerous that one
should not permit its belief and advocacy to go unchallenged.

M. Muller's position is clear, and his arguments deserve better treatment,
than they have suffered at your hands.  I can only wonder what motivated you
to distort his arguments, evidence, and position in the way that you have.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                              USENET:  ucbvax!ernie!robinson
                                              ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu