[net.religion] Logical Arguments

brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/02/84)

[]

The purpose of this article is to lay to rest once and for all
a confusion that some (Rich Rosen, Alan Driscoll, most explicitly,
and there have been stray comments by others) seem to have
concerning my articles.

I make no pretence of using "logical" or "reasonable" arguments.
I don't know what a "reductionist" argument is and don't care.
If you ever see a "logical argument" in my writing it is an accident.
If you see "reductionist" arguments in my articles and this is 
detestable to you, then stop reading!!  Please!  Save yourselves some
needless grief!

--
David Brunson, Master of Netsmanship

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/04/84)

> I make no pretence of using "logical" or "reasonable" arguments.
> If you ever see a "logical argument" in my writing it is an accident.

... or a miracle.  :-?  (At least THIS Arndt clone has come forth and
practically admitted that he is just an average guy [?] trying to make
religionists look bad, as a result of making a statement like the above.
Either this perception is correct or we are really dealing with someone
not capable of making a rational decision for himself, let alone others.)

> One of the applicants, Howard Jones, is a homosexual who exactly
> fills the requirements.  The other is Susan Cohen, an observant
> Jew who meets the education requrement but lacks the necessary
> experience.  Some will say "how do you know about their non-job
> related backgrounds"?  Okay.  Let's say I went to school with 
> Howard Jones.  When he showed up for the interview I asked him,
> "hey Howard, you still a homo?"  And he said, "Sure am, Dave."
> Susan Cohen wore a Star-of-David pin to her interview which
> provoked a discussion of, among other things, her family life,
> synagogues in the area where she might like to attend if she
> gets the job and so forth.

Any interviews in which the personal private lives of the interviewees
are discussed are unethical.  People have won lawsuits based on claims
that they were not hired because the interviewer discussed personal or
religious beliefs, et al.  An ethical job interviewer would never concern
him/herself with such matters during an interview.  The rest of your scenario
has already been discussed, pointing out your empty basis for your
discrimination and your contemptible patronizing attitude toward Jews.

> And my proposition is that race, color, *most* creeds should be
> irrelevant, but not "sexual preference".  Discrimination against
> persons because they are black or jewish or arab is an abomination, just
> as granting homosexuals, adulterers, and other aberrant individuals
> "rights" is an abomination.

And my proposition is that race, color, creeds should be irrelevant,
but not "being named Brunson".  Discrimination against persons based on
race or creed is an abomination, but discrimination against people named
Brunson (or those with other aberrant names) is OK.  My proposition is just
as worthy of consideration as yours:  it's equally arbitrary, equally
vacuous.  (By the way, which creeds were you leaving out?  The non-Judaeo/
Christian ones?)

> I am not advocating discrimination against blacks, jews, or democrats.
> If I were a black, jew, or democrat, I would be outraged by this
> association.  This is an example of a tactic that is frequently used
> by the homosexual activist.  The public is supposed to be so conditioned
> that the word "discrimination" triggers a Pavlovian association with Hitler,
> concentration camps, persecution of Jews.  Jews should be indignant
> at being placed in the same fraternal brotherhood of sufferers as
> homosexuals.  Are they?  I'd be interested to know.

This one isn't (though Arndt and Martillo might argue about my Jewishness).
(At times like this I always recall, and always forget the name of, the
clergyman who said "First they came for... but I was not... so I didn't speak
up".  Of course I also forget the text itself.  If someone would be so kind...)
The "tactic" being engaged in is YOURS:  the crux of your argument is that
YOU don't like homosexuals, thus you have a right to discriminate against
them.  The word, discrimination, when taken to its logical extreme (as it
often is when it is unchecked), *should* trigger the response you describe
for ANY group being unjustly discriminated against.

> How about: Type 2 wrongness: teaching people that personally harmful
>            things are okay so long as you only hurt yourself and not
> 	   anyone else.

I take "personally harmful" to mean that YOU judge it to be harmful to
a given individual because YOU find it repugnant.  If you liked eating
chocolate, and I (and others) found that practice repugnant, and
discriminated against you for engaging in it, would that make sense?
(I know, not a good way to phrase a question directed at an Arndt clone.)
-- 
BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong!  You don't have to follow me!  You don't
        have to follow ANYONE!  You've got to think for yourselves! You are
	all individuals!"
CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/05/84)

.

>I make no pretence of using "logical" or "reasonable" arguments.
>I don't know what a "reductionist" argument is and don't care.
>If you ever see a "logical argument" in my writing it is an accident.
> ...
>
>--
>David Brunson, Master of Netsmanship

Then by your own admission, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Why do you bother?
-- 

					Robert A. Pease
    {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap

brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/08/84)

.

>>I make no pretence of using "logical" or "reasonable" arguments.
>>I don't know what a "reductionist" argument is and don't care.
>>If you ever see a "logical argument" in my writing it is an accident.
>> ...
>>
>>--
>>David Brunson, Master of Netsmanship
>
>Then by your own admission, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
>					Robert A. Pease

How does that follow? (as they say) :-)

--
David Brunson, M.N.