renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/29/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93300:uiucdcs:29200106:000:1552 uiucdcs!renner Feb 28 18:36:00 1984 > The bottom line of all this is that I think that there are a lot of > ideas that get spouted in this news group that are very dangerous. > ... I realize that it is not possible or desireable to restrain these > people from proposing these ideas, but I believe that they should be > rebutted as firmly and quickly as possible. I also don't think that it > is out of line to make certain deductions about the intelligence and/or > knowledge of the proposer, either. -- Phil Polli I am not convinced that an idea, in and of itself, can be dangerous. This might be an interesting topic for further discussion. I do agree with Phil Polli that it is dangerous to let certain ideas go unchallenged, and I believe that such proposals should be rebutted with the best arguments available. Personal attacks have no place in these rebuttals. Cheap shots and degrading insults are no substitute for a good counter-argument. The usual effect of insults on the net is to shift attention from the issue to the nature of the insults. When I see such an article, I conclude that either the author cannot write a valid counter-argument, or that he hopes to prevent dicussion of the issue entirely. Also, one should make sure that the idea rebutted is actually the idea proposed. It's easy to twist a proposal into something easily refuted. However, unless your intent is to convince others through deception, or to prevent any discussion through confusion, this tactic will not serve your purpose. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
graham@parsec.UUCP (02/29/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93300:parsec:40500021:000:315 parsec!graham Feb 28 12:23:00 1984
pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (03/04/84)
Some of the issues raised in Andy Berman's response to my questions led me to consider the following proposition: Should anyone get upset over topics discussed or actions proposed in an idea sharing forum such as netnews? In particular, should I get upset and angry if someone proposes disenfranchising the poor? After all, people have a right to express their opinions, don't they? What right do I have to get sarcastic, or call him a jerk? Some people would probably say that I should just ignore such proposals. After all, they're not hurting anybody are they? But here is where I disagree. Ideas can hurt people. Certain ideas, if allowed to go unchecked or unchallenged, can cause much suffering. The reason that the pen is mightier than the sword is because ideas are what cause wars. Consider four examples: 1) The idea that the Jews were responsible for Germanys economic plight in the 30's was not just an inocuous slur. Given encouragement by the Nazi's, that idea caused untold pain and suffering. Should the knowledgebale Germans have simply ignored the Nazis and their poisonous ideas? If they had had the courage to speak up, could WWII have been avoided? My opinion is that the silence of the educated Germans helped the Nazis come to power. 2) The opinion by most Americans that the blacks weren't quite as human as whites wasn't exactly harmless either. It took this country a lot of effort, and a lot of dead bodies, before that idea was expunged. The proposal that "poor" people shouldn't have the right to vote because they don't know enough is frightening, because it threatens to start that battle all over again. It's not very hard to read black and hispanic into the use of the codeword poor. I believe that that idea should be rebutted forcefully and quickly. I remember the difficulty I had with my parents over whether blacks should have equal rights. I don't want to fight that battle again with my children, because no one taught them the history of that idea. 3) The idea popular in certain quarters today that the theory of creationism is just as good as the theory of evolution threatens to set back American biological sciences by many years. Already, the teaching of evolution is being reduced or eliminated altogether in school textbooks. If children are not taught the fundamentals of science early, how will we maintain our technological lead in the world? Recall that the Russians have problems today with food production because they refused to learn the science of genetics. 4) The idea that taxes are stolen from citizens is dangerous too. Consider the bloodshed that has surrounded the Posse Comitatus in the midwest. Apparently this group got the word from God that they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Now people are getting killed because of that idea. So my conclusion from the above examples is this: Yes, net.politics should hear from a wide variety of viewpoints. Yes there are lots of questions we can argue about without getting angry or insulting. We clearly do so every day. (Reagans a jerk...Is not..Is so...etc.) But if somebody wants to tell me that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they're all lazy good-for-nothings, or that we should send all the Jews to concentration camps because they're stealing our money, then I am going to get very angry. I am not going to think very much of that person, and I am going to say so in no uncertain terms. The bottom line of all this is that I think that there are a lot of ideas that get spouted in this news group that are very dangerous. The excuse that they are just opinions doesn't placate me at all. I realize that it is not possible or desireable to restrain these people from proposing these ideas, but I believe that they should be rebutted as firmly and quickly as possible. I also don't think that it is out of line to make certain deductions about the intelligence and/or knowledge of the proposer, either. Phil Polli ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (03/05/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93300:uokvax:5000084:000:238 uokvax!emjej Mar 1 09:18:00 1984 I don't believe that anyone has proposed that you shouldn't stop rebutting notions proposed on the net that you consider wrong/fallacious. Indeed, I would like to see you *start* doing so. Vituperation is not rebuttal. James Jones
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (03/05/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93300:uokvax:5000085:000:458 uokvax!emjej Mar 1 13:23:00 1984 Arf. I apologize for forgetting about the lack of context on the net and that not everybody runs notes(1). Please forgive this lapse, and let it be known that my note starting /***** uokvax:net.politics / emjej / 9:18 am Mar 1, 1984 */ I don't believe that anyone has proposed that you shouldn't stop rebutting notions proposed on the net that you consider wrong/fallacious. /* ---------- */ is in response to a note from Phil Polli. James Jones
jobe@ssc-vax.UUCP (John W Jobe) (03/06/84)
The idea which is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all. -Oscar Wilde -- _______________________________________________________________________________ From the oftimes fiery but seldom understood keyboard of the dark avenger Jobe (...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!jobe)