oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (03/06/86)
>> [Ron Rizzo referring to my mention that zek labor built the >> Soviet end of the Siberian-European gas pipeline. ------------------------------ > I have this nasty feeling as I read this that you must be joking, >and I have missed all of the :-). If this was a joke and I missed the >point feel free to flame at me for my stupidity... [David desJardins] > No evidence here, just unsupported speculation by ardent anti-Soviets. ------------------------------ In this case including Andrei Sakharov. Does he have a history of lying, or showing disrespect for the truth? > And we all know that if those nasty Communists say one thing the >opposite must be true... ------------------------------ A telling point. >> In "The First Guidebook to U.S.S.R. Prisons and Concentration >> Camps," Avraham Shifrin superimposed the pipeline route with >> wonderful precision on a map of the camps. [ 141 ] > So at last we have the evidence. Did he happen by any chance to >superimpose either of these with railroad maps? I'll bet they match >with "wonderful precision." Or does the fact that the camps are near >the rail lines mean that the prisoners were forced to build those too? :-) ------------------------------ It doesn't MEAN it. But isn't it likely anyway? I am mystified that Mr. desJardins belittles the topic with cute debater's tricks. Does he seriously doubt the allegations? Must they be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law? Evidence ranging from Solzhenitsyn's works, to reports by Amnesty International and other human-rights organizations, to stratments of ex-prisoners, to Soviet military SIOPs (which include punishment battalions of zeks qto be forced into battle, with KGB forces riding herd on them) support systematic Soviet use of slave labor on various projects, including major items of national development. Is this one somehow magically different? Why such sneering superiority? If you debate Ron Rizzo, do you need to prove he's screwed up on every point, truth be damned? Must you stake your ego (and argument) on a reversal of longstanding Soviet domestic policy? It seems natural to believe the USSR uses slave labor wherever it can, including on the pipeline. It's a side issue from the viewpoint of arms control, but not when we model ideal societies. I don't feel a need to "prove" such specifics to people emotionally involved with believing the opposite. Patterns of behavior and close precedents suffice. That's not ideological - there are nations and regimes with recent histories of cruel behavior, left and right. That's no great revelation. (Admittedly, if someone accused the Swedish government of deliberate brutality as national policy, I'd want to see extensive evidence, since it flies in the face of all other information about that country. But is it difficult to believe nasty things happen routinely in South Africa, Paraguay, even the USSR? If you were told that Indonesian troops slaughter Timorese, would it amaze you? Would you require proof before giving the report any credence?) I suspect you wrote your message merely to make Ron Rizzo feel like shit. If that's important to you, go right ahead, little boy. But don't call it debating - merely baiting. -- ---------- Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mit-vax!oaf 617-253-8598
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/08/86)
> ... [Oded Feingold replying to David DesJardins, flaming slightly]
Hold it, HOLD IT!
Look, I like Oded. I like David (he is fellow Berkleyite mathematician
type). Let's not get personal guys, please ...desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/15/86)
In article <380@mit-vax.UUCP> oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) writes (in response to my posting on alleged Soviet use of slave labor): > >> No evidence here, just unsupported speculation by ardent anti-Soviets. > > In this case including Andrei Sakharov. Does he have a history of lying, >or showing disrespect for the truth? It's hard to understand how you can cite someone who is not even permitted to travel as a source for what is happening thousands of miles away. >>> In "The First Guidebook to U.S.S.R. Prisons and Concentration >>> Camps," Avraham Shifrin superimposed the pipeline route with >>> wonderful precision on a map of the camps. [ 141 ] > >> So at last we have the evidence. Did he happen by any chance to >>superimpose either of these with railroad maps? I'll bet they match >>with "wonderful precision." Or does the fact that the camps are near >>the rail lines mean that the prisoners were forced to build those too? :-) > > It doesn't MEAN it. But isn't it likely anyway? I don't remember claiming that it wasn't likely (actually I know I didn't!). I certainly do not question that it *might* be true that the Soviets are using slave labor in the construction of their pipeline (ASIDE: just as the US has been known to use chain gangs on public works projects). My point is that the posting to which I was replying offered no evidence to that effect. And rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes (in response to the same posting): > >>Where's the evidence? cries David Desjardins. > >According to Webster's (WNCD9), evidence: "an outward sign" or "indication," >"something that furnishes proof," "something legally submitted to a tribunal >to ascertain the truth of the matter." >I offered only "sources" for a "claim," ie, the identification of those who >made the claim (granted, the word "sources" is ambiguous). So, you do *not* claim that there is any "outward sign" or "indication" that your allegations are true? If this is so why are you posting them?? >However, the fact >the sources pointed to, ie, Communist use of slave labor in big works projects >(from the construction of Moscow high-rises, some of which stand on the sites >of former camps whose inmates built them, to the digging of the infamous White >Sea canal), is an outward sign, or indication, of the possible truth of the >claim that zeks built the pipeline, something that can be taken in at least >partial evidence of the claim. Just as the fact that the US has used chain gangs of prisoners in the past is an "outward sign" or "indication" that all major public works projects in the US use slave labor? >From the intensity & length of David's message, I'd say he has a strong >desire to examine any evidence. Well, there's a place to look (& it's a >fairly obvious one): the NYTimes Index during the 1980s (when the pipe- >line was built), since the Times dispatched reporters to investigate >and they published articles. NO! NO! NO! This is the whole point! It is the responsibility of one who makes allegations to provide the evience for his claim. I do read the NY Times. I have not seen anything that I consider sufficient evidence to support a claim that slave labor is really being used. I would be very happy if you could produce such evidence. But can't you at least recognize that it is *your* responsibility to produce evidence for your claims (that is, if you wish them to be taken seriously by intelligent people)? >I'd do it myself & post the results if I had the time. But at least >Oded Feingold & I raised the issue, and interested parties can pursue >the matter further, that is, if they're really interested at all. What do you mean by "pursue the matter further"? I really can't see how I could do this short of traveling to the Soviet Union, escaping from my "tour guides," and journeying thousands of miles across Siberia to the construction sites. I'm afraid I don't have the time either. :-) The point is that there is (to my knowledge) not a sufficient body of published evidence to support your claims. I am *not* saying that they are not true (so please don't put those words in my mouth). I am saying that an intelligent discussion requires that each side produce evidence to support its claims (a claim which I take to be self-evident, and so I will provide no evidence :-)). Finally, back to OAF's more personal (to say the least) comments: > I am mystified that Mr. desJardins belittles the topic with cute >debater's tricks. Does he seriously doubt the allegations? Must they >be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law? Evidence >ranging from Solzhenitsyn's works, to reports by Amnesty International >and other human-rights organizations, to stratments of ex-prisoners, >to Soviet military SIOPs (which include punishment battalions of zeks >qto be forced into battle, with KGB forces riding herd on them) >support systematic Soviet use of slave labor on various projects, >including major items of national development. Is this one somehow >magically different? Do I seriously doubt the allegations? Yes, in the sense that I refuse to believe things for which I have seen a sufficient body of evidence. This applies to the Soviet Union just as surely as to science or the Bermuda Triangle (to some people this is self-evident and requires no evidence; how do you feel about that?). I think I can actually make a good analogy with UFOs. There have been many published accounts of UFO sightings, reports from UFO "prisoners," etc. Do you believe in alien UFOs? Of course not (I hope :-)). You require evidence. And I do not consider unsupported claims of other uses of slave labor as evidence for this particular case! Or do you consider that the broader your allegations, the less evidence is required? > Why such sneering superiority? If you debate Ron Rizzo, do you >need to prove he's screwed up on every point, truth be damned? Must >you stake your ego (and argument) on a reversal of longstanding Soviet >domestic policy? I intended no "sneering superiority," and I do not believe such was present. Any such implications come from your own interpretation. Are you saying that in replying to an article one should not reply to all of the points raised in the article? And I am *not* making the positive assertion that slave labor is not being used (I would be the first to admit that I have no evidence for this claim!). My argument (and my ego :-)) do not depend on this supposition. > It seems natural to believe the USSR uses slave labor wherever it >can, including on the pipeline. It's a side issue from the viewpoint >of arms control, but not when we model ideal societies. I don't feel >a need to "prove" such specifics to people emotionally involved with >believing the opposite. Patterns of behavior and close precedents >suffice. That's not ideological - there are nations and regimes with >recent histories of cruel behavior, left and right. That's no great >revelation. To whom is this addressed? To me? I have no "emotional involvement with believing the opposite." The problem is that it "seems natural to believe" all sorts of crazy things to all sorts of people. If you hope (as I presume you do, otherwise what is the point of the discussion?) to convince people that the things you believe are true, you must have evidence! Do you question this? > (Admittedly, if someone accused the Swedish government of >deliberate brutality as national policy, I'd want to see extensive >evidence, since it flies in the face of all other information about >that country. But is it difficult to believe nasty things happen >routinely in South Africa, Paraguay, even the USSR? If you were told >that Indonesian troops slaughter Timorese, would it amaze you? Would >you require proof before giving the report any credence?) YES! YES! YES! I *would* require proof!! This is the essence of the point I am trying to make. Intelligent discussion requires evidence. In my mind this is closly connected with the discussion of censorship. You are probably (I don't mean this as an insult) in the group that favors censorship of people who make demonstrably false statements. I prefer simply to allow people to offer documentary evidence for their assertions, and then to judge their statements on the basis of this evidence (rather than allowing the state to judge what is permitted). > I suspect you wrote your message merely to make Ron Rizzo feel >like shit. If that's important to you, go right ahead, little boy. I find your "suspicion" extremely offensive. Ron Rizzo posts an article making certain "claims." I post a reply pointing out to him and to other readers that he has no real evidence for his claims. What is your problem with this?? I suspect that *you* are the one with the "emotional involvement" in believing certain things. Nothing else can explain your incredibly hostile tone in response to my perfectly valid and clearly stated objections. > But don't call it debating - merely baiting. You seem to be the one who has abandoned debate in favor of ad hominem attacks. God knows why. -- David desJardins