merrill@rex.DEC (01/31/85)
The following apparently comes from the "last remaining LIBERAL". It is a good example of the seductiveness of humanistic "logic". NOTICE however the following sneaky elements of this "debate": PUTTING WORDS IN THE OPPONENTS MOUTH ! SETTING UP STRAW MEN ! IMPLICIT GUILT BY ASSOCIATION ! EXTENDING FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL ! EXTENDING FROM THE GENERAL TO THE SPECIFIC ! HIDDEN SUBJECTIVITY (NEVER STATING VALUES EXPLICITLY). IGNORING DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE ! |Subject: "Spanking"Posted: Tue Jan 29 06:55:42 1985 |"Spanking" is a marvelous euphemism. When one adult strikes another, |it's called "assault," or maybe just "hitting." ... |Look, violence is violence. You wouldn't accept it if your neighbor |hit you because you were doing something he didn't like. Hitting your |kid is the same thing, exactly. | "But that's different," you say. "I have to TEACH my kid." |I'm sure that if your college, graduate, or professional school |professor had raised a hand to you, you wouldn't have found that to |be justified on these grounds. | "No, I have to teach him DISCIPLINE!" |Army drill instructors teach discipline, too. In fact, they are |legendary for being rather harsh disciplinarians. And no one ever |accused them of harboring the tender, loving feelings toward their |charges that parents are assumed to have. Yet drill instructors are |forbidden from striking recruits. | "But family members aren't the same as strangers." |You're not allowed to hit your spouse without facing criminal |penalties and society's scorn. | "But my kid's too young too listen to reason." |And he's old enough to understand being assaulted? | "How else can I get him to obey me?" |You accept not being able to force everyone else in the world to |submit to your will. (At least, I hope you do!) Why is your child |any less privileged? | "I provide for my kid's every need. That gives me the | privilege of deciding how to raise him." |Sounds like a description of a hostage situation, not a family. |Prison convicts are also provided with food, clothing, and shelter, |and, perhaps, have proven themselves unworthy of protection in a way |that few misbehaving 4-year olds have; nonetheless, the guards and wardens |are prohibited from hitting them. | "Look buddy," you say, grasping at libertarian straws, "This | is a personal, family matter. Butt out!" |No, protection from physical violence is guaranteed by our society,... |Look at it another way: of all the members of our society, even |including those charged with maintaining law and order -- police, |prison guards, drill sergeants, etc. -- the only ones granted |permission (by many states) to administer physical punishment to |others are grade-school teachers. The same teachers reviled by many |parents as the stupidest ("those who can, do..."), laziest, |civil-service union hacks, are given this unique privilege, just |because we think so little of the rights of our supposedly-beloved |children. |We teach our kids even when we don't intend to. Do we want to teach |them that rights are determined by who has the physical power, that |violence is a legitimate way to get someone to do what you want? |"Spanking" -- child beating -- has been around for a long time, it's |true: look at the world out there and see if we haven't reaped just |what's been sown. |Jan W. ... Uh, Jan, how many kids you got? We have 5 and our policy is never spank under 2.5 yrs and hopefully not after 12 yrs of age and hopefully never more than once a year! Rick
allenm@ittvax.UUCP (Allen Matsumoto) (02/02/85)
The following article seems guilty of using argumentative "tricks", which is what it complains about its target of doing. It starts by categorizing the author (and the article) in perjoritive terms (guilt by association?). Then gives the word logic in "disbelief quotes" without explicitly saying what really is or is not logical. And then it lists several "sneaky elements" without attributing any one to particular things of the original article. This is a real shotgun approach to discrediting a whole article. This is as bad as "These are possible illogical things. <list them> Here is an article. <quotes uncommented article> Here is my position." (Not your classic textbook debate :-) I know many of you won't believe such an unfair attack exists, so I am quoting it here: > The following apparently comes from the "last remaining LIBERAL". > It is a good example of the seductiveness of humanistic "logic". > > NOTICE however the following sneaky elements of this "debate": > PUTTING WORDS IN THE OPPONENTS MOUTH ! > SETTING UP STRAW MEN ! > IMPLICIT GUILT BY ASSOCIATION ! > EXTENDING FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL ! > EXTENDING FROM THE GENERAL TO THE SPECIFIC ! > HIDDEN SUBJECTIVITY (NEVER STATING VALUES EXPLICITLY). > IGNORING DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE ! > > [original article copied here with no indication of what is illogical, > offending, or examples of the "sneaky elements" listed above.] > |Jan W. ... > > Uh, Jan, how many kids you got? > > We have 5 and our policy is never spank under 2.5 yrs and hopefully > not after 12 yrs of age and hopefully never more than once a year! > > Rick I'm amazed at the whole thing. First, there is simply no way for the original author to defend, since it's never clear what is being attacked. To say something like, "This isn't an example of sneaky element X," would be met with, "I didn't say it was." That means either (a) it's sneaky element Y, or (b) something else is sneaky element X. Also, the author is categorized as the "last remaining LIBERAL". What sort of response can there be to that? I'm not LIBERAL. I'm not liberal. I'm not the last remaining LIBERAL. etc. All these are missing the actual attack. If the audience dislikes liberals, than not being the "last" or the "capitalized" liberal is no help. If the audience is liberal, the author is accused of misrepresenting them. Rather like the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Same comments about "humanistic logic". (I think of myself as liberal. What's wrong with that? And no, I haven't stopped beating my wife.) Finally (this probably is getting too long), what do the comments about number of children and your spanking policy have to do with the logic of the argument. How many kids you have says something about your experience, not about whether you know anything about raising them well. Having policies about spanking doesn't prove they are good policies, or even well-reasoned ones. Worse yet, the original argument at least tried to reason from some base toward specific conclusions, while this article simply attacks, and then presents unconnected facts. If you can show the logic is faulty (you haven't), that doesn't imply the conclusions are wrong. If you want to say your logic is superior (it doesn't seem to be), that doesn't imply your policies are right. -- Allen Matsumoto ITT Adv. Tech. Center, Stratford, CT 06497 203-385-7218 (decvax!ittvax!allenm) <generic disclaimer>: Any opinions expressed are my opinions.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz) (02/02/85)
> The following apparently comes from the "last remaining LIBERAL". > It is a good example of the seductiveness of humanistic "logic". > NOTICE however the following sneaky elements of this "debate": > PUTTING WORDS IN THE OPPONENTS MOUTH ! > SETTING UP STRAW MEN ! > IMPLICIT GUILT BY ASSOCIATION ! > EXTENDING FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL ! > EXTENDING FROM THE GENERAL TO THE SPECIFIC ! > HIDDEN SUBJECTIVITY (NEVER STATING VALUES EXPLICITLY). > IGNORING DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE ! > [RICK MERRILL???] Amazing what "humanists" can learn from listening to religious demagogues. No smiley intended. By the way, Rick, care to point out specifically where any or all of these things took place in the quoted article, and why it presented incorrect or flawed information? ... I thought not. Sorry to intrude in net.kids where I know there's a contract out on my life. Further discussion in private or in net.philosophy, please. -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) (02/04/85)
You forgot my favorite element of net debating:
BEGGING THE QUESTION
A truly fine tool in the net debate kit, and not a few of us
have it mastered :-)
Brian Atkins ...{hao, allegra, ucbvax, amd}!nbires!atkins