ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) (08/12/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
JJ is out there somewhere, still getting his licks in. Never one to
shirk a challenge, here's my response to his latest:
I really appreciate how all of my critics can quote chapter and verse
of their standard arguments without reading what they're criticizing.
Two can play at this game, and I feel you're far more guilty of not reading
than most of your respondents. One of jj's other pet peeves is people who
use "emotion" rather than "facts and logic" in political debate. There are
precious few facts and there's damn little logic in the following excerpts
(which are \not/ quoted out of context, if you were wondering).
Such cheap shots are what being a Democrat seems to be all about,
i.e. the use of emotion to cloud reason.
I note that the author seemingly ... makes some assumptions about
my background, just for the purpose of accusing me of being a
fascist liar (which was his intent, regardless of what was said).
I didn't manage to partly overcome [my background] by burning down
and destroying, either physically or rhetorically.
I've since lost most of my patience watching the poor, etc, getting
sucked in by the same old lies.
I think this qualifies as "using emotion," particularly the first two
examples. The first one is particularly neat, tarring your opponent
with the brush you say that only he uses. The generalizations above
("burning down and destroying," "the same old lies,") are a nice way
of avoiding any specifics. YOU may know what you mean, jj, but the
rest of us don't. Care to clue us in?
I noticed that the main respondant [me, I guess --ddw] used lots of
indications where I misspelled words, etc, as emotional ammunition,
further proving my point about emotional deception.
No, I was just trying to make you look ignorant. People like you are
their own worst enemies when they venture into print. (For the record,
I note that the people I've been sic-ing have shown a dramatic drop in
the number of typos in their submissions.)
I notice that my main detractor thinks that, because he
can find fault he is superior.
The concept of fascism comes to mind again.
It does? This accusation is so far off the wall it's not even in the
room. Let's see if I have this straight: because I can find fault,
I think I'm superior. This means I'm a fascist.
I'd say that it may mean I'm an elitist, but that's hardly the same thing.
Calling someone a fascist has been a handy device for many years, but
merely applying a label to to something does not make the label fit. By
the way, given the emotional content of the word "fascism" and your
unsupported application of the term to me, I think "using emotion rather
than facts and logic" should come to mind. By the way, "elitism" also
applies to jj, who has mentioned that the naughty Democrats use emotion
to deceive those less able to spot this than he. Clearly, he feels himself
superior in some sense to those who fall prey to this tactic.
Apparently it's ok to criticize even if one doesn't have a better idea.
Probably. Back in the 1950's, the Republicans were very busy criticizing
the Democrats for "losing China" without having said how they would have
"saved" it. The Democrats managed to strike back in the 1960 campaign by
accusing the Republicans of having "lost Cuba." So everything came out
nice and even.
On a more immediate note, jj is happy to criticize "failed policies" and
"the same old lies" without offering any alternatives. Enough!
"You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye and then you will
be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye!"
Matthew 6.5
_____________________________________
A suggestion: let's start this whole thing over again. So far, we've
had letters suggesting that the Republicans differ from the Democrats
on
1) Policy on the USSR. This has mutated into a debate on Vietnam and
Central America, but may be winding down.
2) Using emotion vs facts-and-logic (see above message). This is
turning into name-calling and worse.
There ought to be some issues on which the two parties do differ strongly.
Foreign policy is a hodgepodge and may not be a good example. How about
domestic policy? One caution: make sure you explain why something is
either a Democratic or Republican policy; that is, was it in the party
platform, did 95% of Dem/Rep congressmen vote for it, or what. Citing
isolated instances of members of a party will not do; there's too much
of a spectrum within each (e.g. Democrats range from Henry Jackson to
Teddy Kennedy; Republicans range from Lowell Weicker to Jesse Helms.)
I may try this myself, but I'm rather busy these days.
David Wright
{vax135|decvax|ihnp4}!cornell!ddw
ddw.cornell@udel-relay
ddw@cornelljj@rabbit.UUCP (08/15/83)
Mr. WRight does it again! He fails to quote the first part of my second article simply because it agrees with him, and shows just why his raving is no better than mine, or anyone else's. sorry ysu!