mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (05/03/85)
Lines marked with an odd number of '>' are those of Baba; the rest are mine. >>>>>>>I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given >>>>>>>by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed >>>>>>>libertarian several weeks earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Rather than seeming to recall, why doesn't Baba give us a concrete >>>>>>example? >>>>> >>>>>Quite simply, spar doesn't have enough disk space to archive more than a >>>>>couple of weeks worth of news... ...If you would care to mail >>>>>me a copy of your article, I'll be happy to tell you which example >>>>>I was referring to. >>>> >>>>Wonderful! Baba makes an assertion which he cannot substantiate, and the >>>>truth of which I question, and then asks him that I send him the proof. If >>>>I knew of an article which proved his accusation, I wouldn't have >>>>challenged it in the first place. I find his request extremely bizarre! >>> >>>If you would take the time to read my postings before replying, you might >>>notice a few little things that seem to escape your attention. Like the >>>fact that I was requesting a copy of *YOUR* article. I ask the reader to note that Baba (as per my claims elsewhere) doesn't say below that he was off-base in making the above statement. Baba has elsewhere accused me of attempted libel when I wrongly insult someone, despite that I always admit to error when shown to be wrong. Baba, on the other hand, just goes on. I believe that MY concern for the truth is obvious; I believe that HIS is not. >>If you would take the time to think before making your demands, you might >>see how bizarre they are. I KNOW that you were requesting one of MY >>articles, but let's examine your request. >> 1. You claim that I attacked an argument as straw-man when it had been >> used by someone calling himself 'libertarian'. >> 2. I doubt it, and ask for a concrete example. >> 3. You ask me to send an example. >>If I don't know anything about the alleged example, other than that it is >>alleged as an example, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH ARTICLE YOU'RE >>TALKING ABOUT?!? Let alone where to find it! As I said: BIZARRE!!! > >[...] >In [JJ's article 'Regarding Libertarians and the Argumentations thereof'] >jj referred to the previous article of yours concerning those rhetorical >scarecrows. Unfortunately, he did not post his article as a "followup" in >the news system, so I cannot tell you how to find your article on your >machine. I don't think it should really be that difficult if your postings >are archived anywhere. Tell you what: If you've posted multiple articles >dealing with straw-man arguments directed against libertarians, you could >mail them *all* to me. But finish reading this one first. Straw men arguments against Libertarianism are the ROUTINE in netnews, which is the major reason that I'm so goddamned angry so much of the time. I can't begin to guess how many times that I've had to point out a distinction between what Libertarians believe and what we are said to believe. I haven't saved these articles because I didn't anticipate any use for them (they are elementary replies to lousy arguments). I am aware that there are those who claim to be Libertarians who make false assertions about Libertarianism. But I have made a point of attacking them directly (for example, I wrote in response to one who incorporated Ethical Relativism into what he called 'Libertarianism'), and I have tried to be subdued in correcting those who probably have honestly been mislead by these Vulgar Libertarians. I say 'honestly' because it is possible to dishonestly attack an ideology by deliberately targetting its worst self-proclaimed adherents. Here's an example that Socialists are continually confronted with: German National Socialists wanted to exterminate Jews. Socialists want to exterminate Jews. More to the point, there are frequent straw-men about what *I* say or believe, and I KNOW that these are false (case in point: sevener, from the time that I began posting, has claimed that I deny the existence of unhealthy concentration of economic power). >[...] >To get back to the matter at hand, if you were unaware of the fundamentally >unreliable nature of usenet, perhaps you saw an article in which someone >attacked an alleged libertarian argument. Perhaps that argument had in fact >been made in an article that never reached your site. Perhaps you therefore >*assumed* the alleged libertarian argument to be a straw man. Such an argument would STILL be a straw-man, but it might not be a DELIBERATE straw-man (and some readers will remember my having elsewhere made the point that some straw-men might not be deliberate). TNX, DKMcK
mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (05/03/85)
Lines marked with an odd number of '>' are those of Baba; the rest are mine. >>>Which argument do you claim I dropped out of "rather than concede error"? >> >>Case in point: You asserted that free market conditions could be such that >>economic growth was necessary to attain full employment. I pointed out that >>demand for labor and supply of labor were both functions of wage rates, and >>that in a Free Economy workers and employers would bid wages up or down until >>full employment was attained, without there necessarily being any growth in >>the economy. > >Your reply, in this case, came about a month after the article of mine that >it referenced (this was, you will recall, around the time that Larry Cipriani >reported that you were unavoidably detained by homework and exams), and >although I wrote a response to it as an exercise, I decided that it was >"old news" and left it sitting around. If you'd like to read it, send me >your net mail address (I know ratex doesn't work). It at least contains more >than personal abuse. Mail can reach me indirectly if sent to cbosgd!dlm instead of ratex!mck. >>In our arguments over inflation and unemployment, you pointed out ONE >>genuine flaw in what I said; specifically, you noted that a general rise in >>prices could be brought about by a major supply-shock, AND I PUBLICLY >>ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT. At every other point you simply dropped out of >>the argument. > >The last statement is simply untrue. On March 3 I posted an article >entitled: "Inflation -- Back from B'ba -- to Dan'l again", which referenced >message ID 911 on ratex, and which raised further questions about your thesis >that a "free economy" with competitive currencies was inflation-proof. I >never saw a response. So either my article never reached ratex, or your >article never reached spar. Or you didn't reply. But the first two >possibilities are the most likely, on usenet. Mail and news get lost pretty >often, at least in this part of the net. And I don't think our area is >unique. Well, I can certainly admit the possibility that my extrapolation was incorrect. I say 'extrapolation', because it was based on a pattern of non- response, which is continued in the article to which I am now responding. Specifically, in your previous posting, you charged that I use innuendo (for which you can never have had ANY evidence in that I never use innuendo) and that I use 'jargon' to 'snow' people (an unreasonable interpretation in light of my repeated offers to explain my nomenclature, at least one of which you were previously familiar with); I pointed out the unreasonableness of these two accusations in the article to which you are above responding, and you dropped the subject. Back later, DKMcK
colonel@gloria.UUCP (06/11/85)
> I don't see how anything can be gained in an argument by questioning the > motivations of your adversaries. It can get you out of a futile argument about abstractions and into one about realities. Ignoring motivations usually gets you nowhere. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/12/85)
>/* colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) / 1:21 pm Jun 11, 1985 */ >> I don't see how anything can be gained in an argument by questioning the >> motivations of your adversaries. >It can get you out of a futile argument about abstractions and into one >about realities. Ignoring motivations usually gets you nowhere. I agree. However, if you doubt the motivations of your adversaries sufficiently, it is perhaps best to leave the argument, since you have little if anything to gain from it. Mike Sykora