carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/06/85)
Clayton Cramer writes: >... if anything, there has been a resurgence >of racial hatred, at least partly because of the government's racist >affirmative action programs. [...] ^^^^^^ > Now in their >particular case, they may have been passed over for promotion for other >reasons, but knowing that government imposed racism *is* happening gives ^^^^^^ >them a reason to believe that they have been victimized themselves. "Affirmative action is racism." "Affirmative action is sexism." [Clayton forgot this one.] "Taxation is theft." "Profit is theft." "Abortion is murder." "Conscription is slavery." "Fascism is socialism." "Socialism is fascism." et cetera... Here we have one of the net's favorite forms of argument: the Argument From Name-Calling. For those who would like to get in on the game, here's how it is done: Select a practice or belief that you don't like. Next, select a category of actions or beliefs that almost everyone strongly opposes, such as racism, fascism, or murder. Now construct a definition of this latter category such that the practice you don't like fits this definition. Congrats, you've just proved that the practice you oppose is wrong! For instance, define racism as "basing an action on a person's race," or define theft as "a transfer of wealth which is or could be enforced by the use of force"; you've just proved that affirmative action and taxation are unjust, since everyone knows that racism and theft are unjust! But the classic use of this form of argument is to prove that abortion is wrong. Here's another example which no one has thought of yet. Let's say you belong to a religious sect that believes that surgery is wrong. Now define violence as "any action which damages the tissues of a person's body." Therefore, since all surgery involves cutting someone up, SURGERY IS VIOLENCE and is thus proved to be immoral. The Argument From Name-Calling is a favorite of the feeble-minded and of Usenetters, since it relieves one of the necessity for coming up with a coherent philosophical argument that the practice you oppose is unjust or immoral. Philosophical reasoning is hard work and makes your head hurt; avoid it wherever possible. I'll bet anything that there is someone reading this who can't figure out what is wrong with the Argument From Name-Calling. Anyway, since it can't be banned from the net, let's all learn how to use it. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/09/85)
>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 3:54 pm May 6, 1985 */ > . . . For instance, define >racism as "basing an action on a person's race," or define theft as >"a transfer of wealth which is or could be enforced by the use of >force"; you've just proved that affirmative action and taxation are >unjust, since everyone knows that racism and theft are unjust! But >the classic use of this form of argument is to prove that abortion is >wrong. >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes How do you define "racism" and "taxation?"
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/12/85)
> Clayton Cramer writes: > > >... if anything, there has been a resurgence > >of racial hatred, at least partly because of the government's racist > >affirmative action programs. [...] ^^^^^^ > > Now in their > >particular case, they may have been passed over for promotion for other > >reasons, but knowing that government imposed racism *is* happening gives > ^^^^^^ > >them a reason to believe that they have been victimized themselves. > > "Affirmative action is racism." > "Affirmative action is sexism." [Clayton forgot this one.] > "Taxation is theft." > "Profit is theft." > "Abortion is murder." > "Conscription is slavery." > "Fascism is socialism." > "Socialism is fascism." > et cetera... > > Here we have one of the net's favorite forms of argument: the > Argument From Name-Calling. For those who would like to get in on > the game, here's how it is done: Select a practice or belief that > you don't like. Next, select a category of actions or beliefs that > almost everyone strongly opposes, such as racism, fascism, or murder. > Now construct a definition of this latter category such that the > practice you don't like fits this definition. Congrats, you've just > proved that the practice you oppose is wrong! For instance, define > racism as "basing an action on a person's race," or define theft as > "a transfer of wealth which is or could be enforced by the use of > force"; you've just proved that affirmative action and taxation are > unjust, since everyone knows that racism and theft are unjust! But > the classic use of this form of argument is to prove that abortion is > wrong. > > Here's another example which no one has thought of yet. Let's say > you belong to a religious sect that believes that surgery is wrong. > Now define violence as "any action which damages the tissues of a > person's body." Therefore, since all surgery involves cutting > someone up, SURGERY IS VIOLENCE and is thus proved to be immoral. > > The Argument From Name-Calling is a favorite of the feeble-minded and > of Usenetters, since it relieves one of the necessity for coming up > with a coherent philosophical argument that the practice you oppose > is unjust or immoral. Philosophical reasoning is hard work and makes > your head hurt; avoid it wherever possible. > > I'll bet anything that there is someone reading this who can't figure > out what is wrong with the Argument From Name-Calling. Anyway, since > it can't be banned from the net, let's all learn how to use it. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Believe as you wish, Mr. Carnes. When I worked as an employment agent, I saw, and not rarely, companies specifying the race and sex of the person to occupy a particular position, because it was necessary to maintain their government contracts. I will agree that affirmative action, in some abstract sense, is not supposed to be racist or sexist; it certainly works out to be same to thing on a practical level, because there are a lot of people in this country who view me, you, and everyone else not as individuals, deserving individual dignity and attention, but as classes, races, sexes, and groups. Affirmative action *is* racism, as it is practiced, and that isn't name calling; that's any definition of racism you can come up with except the one I suspect you really mean: "It's OK to discriminate, as long as it's against white males."
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/14/85)
I disagree. Affirmative action IS rascist (sexist, etc.) in theory, because the money to pay for outreach programs, etc. is extracted coercively by the gov't. Thus, affirmative action entails the gov't. forcing all groups to pay for the ostensible advancement of one group. Mike Sykora
nebula@sftig.UUCP (nebula) (05/17/85)
> I disagree. Affirmative action IS rascist (sexist, etc.) in theory, > because the money to pay for outreach programs, etc. is extracted > coercively by the gov't. Thus, affirmative action entails the > gov't. forcing all groups to pay for the ostensible advancement of > one group. > > Mike Sykora This is the sort of rubbish bred from ignorance! Not to mention the inaccuracy of the statement, but the underlying inuendos make my blood boil. Don't you ever watch 60 minutes or 20/20 even? Try reading up on it and getting the facts before trying to such this sort of falaciously opinionated rhetoric of on those who read the net. Doug Donahue AT&T Information Systems attunix!dr_d 201 522 6175
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/20/85)
From sftig!nebula (Doug Donohue): [believe me, *what* he's replying to is irrelevant to my point] > This is the sort of rubbish bred from ignorance! Not to mention the inaccuracy of > the statement, but the underlying inuendos make my blood boil. Don't you ever watch > 60 minutes or 20/20 even? Try reading up on it and getting the facts before trying > to such this sort of falaciously opinionated rhetoric of on those who read the net. ...And as the Sun sinks slowly in the West, we see yet another political airhead hoisted high on his own petard. The above was the *entire contents* of Mr. Donohue's posting, apart from an included quote he was responding to. Oh, well, back to net.religion for some reasoned debate. :-) (-: - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/21/85)
Now don't all of you wish you could argue with such finesse. Perhaps Mr. Donahue would like to open a debate school, for those of us not quite as skilled as he in the subtle art of argument. Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/21/85)
Now don't all of you wish you could argue with such finesse. Perhaps Mr. Donahue would like to open a debate school, for those of us not quite as skilled as he in the subtle art of argument. Note that Mr. Donahue is true to his word -- he doesn't mention the inaccuracies! Mike Sykora P.S. -- How does Mr. Donahuue know that this "rubbish" was bred from ignorance? Perhaps it was born of maliciousness or stupidity!
ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter) (05/24/85)
In article <528@sftig.UUCP> nebula@sftig.UUCP (nebula) writes: > >> I disagree. Affirmative action IS rascist (sexist, etc.) in theory, >> because the money to pay for outreach programs, etc. is extracted >> coercively by the gov't. Thus, affirmative action entails the >> gov't. forcing all groups to pay for the ostensible advancement of >> one group. >> >> Mike Sykora > >This is the sort of rubbish bred from ignorance! Not to mention the inaccuracy of >the statement, but the underlying inuendos make my blood boil. Don't you ever watch >60 minutes or 20/20 even? Try reading up on it and getting the facts before trying >to such this sort of falaciously opinionated rhetoric of on those who read the net. > > Doug Donahue > AT&T Information Systems > attunix!dr_d > 201 522 6175 Ah, 60 minutes and 20/20! Such reliable and unbiased sources of raw facts, never couched within any one groups personal opinions! Seriously, I completely agree that everyone should always read up on and at least attempt to understand an issue before making broad statements of supposed facts (asking dumb questions is always ok - how else do we learn). However, if your facts are really based simply on TV magazines then you are the one spewing ``rubbish bread from ignorance'' (at least you suggested reading up on things, though you forgot to mention that anyone can select a set of newspapers, journals, magazines, reports, etc. that will appease her/his own opinions; it is the READERS responsibility to see to it that (s)he is getting an unbiased view of the facts). As to affirmative action I have definate opinions, but I don't think I'll express them here (they'd probably just end up clouding a good flame with facts). Phil Ritter TRW -- Phillip A. Ritter
dr_d@sftig.UUCP (D.Donahue) (05/29/85)
> I disagree. Affirmative action IS rascist (sexist, etc.) in theory, > because the money to pay for outreach programs, etc. is extracted > coercively by the gov't. Thus, affirmative action entails the > gov't. forcing all groups to pay for the ostensible advancement of > one group. > > Mike Sykora > >>This is the sort of rubbish bred from ignorance! Not to mention the >>inaccuracy of the statement, but the underlying inuendos make my blood boil. >>Don't you ever watch 60 minutes or 20/20 even? Try reading up on it and >>getting the facts before trying to such this sort of falaciously opinionated >>rhetoric of on those who read the net. > >From sftig!nebula (Doug Donohue): >[believe me, *what* he's replying to is irrelevant to my point] > > > ...And as the Sun sinks slowly in the West, we see yet another >political airhead hoisted high on his own petard. The above was the *entire >contents* of Mr. Donohue's posting, apart from an included quote he was >responding to. Oh, well, back to net.religion for some reasoned debate. >:-) (-: > >- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center > Moffett Field, CA >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry > EXXCCUUSSSSSSEEEEEEEE MMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! I didn't read your article Kern, so I don't know what your point was. I was replying to the M. Sykora posting. I must say however, that I was a little perturbed when I read the Sykora posting (see above). I was upset because the words "in theory" didn't quite sink in; my mistake. I was under the imp- ression that the reply was being made as a statement in fact, not as a statement with theoretical reference. So, if you, or anyone else on the net were a little bent after reading the reply that I posted, I can understand that. In any case, chill out, in this light, the reply WAS a bit misdirected. I'm still disturbed by the concluding sentence in the post. Granted AA, IN THEORY, is racist, sexist and probably a few other ~~~ist's beside. Mr. Sykoras final statement in the posting was what threw me off. AA in practice DOES NOT, I repeat this point for claritys sake, DOES NOT entail the the gov't having to force all groups to pay for the "ostensible" advancement of one group (with the implication that the advancement is at the expense of "all" other groups). AA is aimed at bringing racial and gender balance into the American work force. Therefore, the primary goal of AA is to bring the ratio of women and non- caucasian americans in line with their respective instances (as groups) in the american populus. I, for one, find this concept to posess radically desirable qualities. Therefore, I was amazed to find after reading the said posting to find : 1) the inaccuracy that AA is designed to perpetuate the advancement of one group ONLY 2) The seeming "rightously" resentfull attitude with reference to the collec- tion/distribution of revenue by the U.S. Gov't The methods employed by the U.S. Gov't in implementing AA may be questionable, this is true. Quotas will not NECESSARILY guarantee gender or racial balance in the american work force. There are probably ways to circumnavagate the man- dates. Quotas will, in the short term, acheive their objective however. Given any argument, pro or con, quotas will achieve the immediate goal of bringing racial and gender inequalitiies more in line with their respective populus instances. I feel that it should be stressed at this point that quotas are a "short term", "quick fix" sort of sollution. I would venture to say that the concievers and installers of AA were/are very aware of the short term nature of quotas. Therefore the idea of quotas is "to get the ball rolling", so to speek. Once a more "just" balance is established, a natural progression can then take place. So much for quotas! Aside from implementation strategies, the idea that AA is, by design, aimed at the perpetuated advancement of ONLY ONE group, is blatantly ridiculous!!! This statement is really what prompted me to post such "an emmotional" reply. As far as I'm concerned, people who believe that such (a) statement(s) are valid are total morons (= ignorant)! If nothing else, one should be able to at least discerne the logistical falacy in such a statement. If an argument was being made in support of such argument(s) then, if nothing else, get your facts straight. > Now don't all of you wish you could argue with such finesse. > Perhaps Mr. Donahue would like to open a debate school, for > those of us not quite as skilled as he in the subtle art of > argument. > > Note that Mr. Donahue is true to his word -- he doesn't mention the > inaccuracies! > > Mike Sykora > > > P.S. -- How does Mr. Donahuue know that this "rubbish" was bred from > ignorance? Perhaps it was born of maliciousness or stupidity! I "like" the "P.S." the best, I think this reply speaks for itself! #2 is a can of worms in itself, so I won't open it. Although, I to am not too happy about having 30-40% dissappear annually. Finally, as far a being a "political airhead" is concerned, I'd just like to quote Eddy Murphy: Git the **ck outa hee-ih! (-:) Doug Donahue AT&T Information Systems 190 River Rd. Summit, NJ 07901 ..!ihnp4!attunix!dr_d