janw@inmet.UUCP (11/25/85)
>[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >In article <7800672@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" >> of Nov 29, page 10: >> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country >> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or >> 78.4 per cent. >> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since >> 1980 has gone to women, not men." >Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >reasoned conclusion from this quotation. Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. Of course there are other factors involved than govt policy, so the conclusion is merely an inductive conjecture. That is why I added the (?). But if you wished to accuse me of a logical fal- lacy, it should've been "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", rather than "non-sequitur". Instead, you chose to interpret my note as a blanket endorsement of the present administration. To dispel that impression (and I really should not have to) let me list a few areas where I disap- prove of its policies: MX ; abortion; death penalty; school prayer; revival of detente; choice of welfare cuts; incoherent mixture of monetarism and supply-side'ism; indiscriminate DoD funding; empty rhetoric on terrorism. I could name many more. Now please re-read your response calmly - and I know you can be logical when you try. What do GI casualties have to do with the text *or* the title of my note ? Watch that knee, Mike: it jerked in mid-word! Right between Reagan- and -omics. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/27/85)
>> >> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country >> >> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or >> >> 78.4 per cent. >> >> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since >> >> 1980 has gone to women, not men." >> >> >Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >> >hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >> >reasoned conclusion from this quotation. >> >> Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- >> lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. >Fortunately, others have adequately rebutted the original "conclusion", and >their rebuttals serve equally well for this one. You are rewriting history. Just look at the quote above. I gave you FACT, no conclusion. Food for thought. As a public service. You ASKED for my conclusion. I gave it to you: the "original" and only. (On the rebuttals, see below). >... you didn't establish that your >statistics had anything to do with equality (as other rebuttals have shown.) >Without a base of reference, you might just as well be saying that women >are getting further ahead of men, which certainly wouldn't be equality. Right you are: *if* women were *ahead* of men, the statistics would show they are getting *further* ahead, and it wouldn't be equality. Facts being what they are, statistics show what they do. Base of reference is all around you. Now, for the rebuttals. I assume you mean two notes by Tim Sevener's, as the others I read consist of silly ad hominem flames. They con- tain some nice analysis. However, it does not rebut. Con- sider Tim's typical case: a man lost a 20K job at a plant, a wom- an has to take a 10K job at McDonald's. Certainly *bad* - but even then, there would be *leveling* of the sexes - it would just be leveling *down*. Whether the case is really typical for today's economy, is much under discussion on the net. But it is a different question. The best feature of Tim's analysis is that he has posed some relevant *questions* . Some conceivable answers to them *would* refute the above conclusion; others would *confirm* it. In either case, facts, not flames, and logic, not ideology, are required. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/30/85)
[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >> >>Of course there are other factors involved [...] >> >>That is why I added the (?). >> >> "Science begins and ends with a question". >Are you trying to tell us that your methods of analysis, article writing, >or opinion formation are science? Or are you trying to tell us that >appending a question mark to what you write makes it science? GOD FORBID (er... just between us atheists). But if science does that, we may do well to emulate her. Posing a question for discussion may produce better (or at least different) results than simply giving your answer for others to refute or agree. A couple of good substantive points have already been made on both sides with respect to my (?) title. (BTW: does the preceding imply - *because* I ended it with with (?) ? Who cares?) I didn't stick in that "science" quote to prove anything, but simply because I like it, as a kind of epigraph. The quote is probably inexact. It's from Karl Popper, but I couldn't place it. >>[a passage using the expression "large mind" (in answer to smtg >>on "small minds" by another poster) and with some flames in it] >My idea of large minds includes avoiding statements and attribu- >tions of intent (and other such fallacious meta-subjects and >red-herrings), and sticking to the basic subjects of the debate. >We all make those mistakes sometimes: let's try not to continue. Guilty as charged. Flames breed flames; attributions of intent are among the worst kind. Inquiries about individuals' "intellec- tual honesty" are of the same kind. A *meta-subject* - about what stuff is proper to post, or to object to - was, I think, a legi- timate (if boring) new subject of debate - if only it was treated calmly. I just posted a note on "What is Fit to Print". Any flames of mine you see will pre-date this response. Jan Wasilewsky
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (12/02/85)
>Guilty as charged. Flames breed flames; attributions of intent >are among the worst kind. Inquiries about individuals' "intellec- >tual honesty" are of the same kind. A *meta-subject* - about what >stuff is proper to post, or to object to - was, I think, a legi- >timate (if boring) new subject of debate - if only it was treated >calmly. I just posted a note on "What is Fit to Print". Any >flames of mine you see will pre-date this response. I thought you were the one who likes to break taboos? One of the favorite taboos I like to broach is discussion of the internal consistency of people's statements and of the processes that lead to disagreement, which include differing use of language, fallacy, and conscious or unconscious lying. It is my firm belief that a major reason Ronald Reagan has that "teflon sticker" is because it is taboo in our media to call someone a liar, even if there is firm evidence. Of course, libel laws are not complete protection, which partially explains the ban. But I really believe that demanding honesty increases honesty since even the demander, once making the demand, will be held up to his own standard. You may totally disagree with me, but you should not criticize me too harshly for breaking taboos that I believe it is preferable to break. However, I have toned down a bit with the awareness that this taboo is being strongly defended. So implicit censorship has once again taken hold. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)