gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (04/26/84)
I am afraid that I must concur with Mr. Dunn's appraisal of
the recent "annotated Humanist." I shall, however, try to
extend as much Grace as possible in the situation.
I am hardly a logician or philosopher or theologian
(although those were all once my fields of travail). I am, however
pretty interested in much of the discourse here. The sort of invective
and informal logical fallacy to be found in the comments on the
Manifesto are certainly NOT limited to those of the religious persuasion.
Perhaps this is either because much of the posted material crosses over
with net.flame (which doesn't pretend to be anything but a sort of
therapeutic place for people to give their bowels (the seat of the
emotions "splaknidzois" as the Greeks would say) vent. Perhaps it is
because no one except me expects a sort of rigour and graciousness
in the arguments posted here (for all the quoting of people like Lewis
and Bertrand Russell I see marched out to do battle here, I've noted little
of the critical acumen for which they are noted)-I've even detected a
bit of pride on the part of some posters on this very point. Instead, it
appears that the Ad Hominem argument reigns supreme ("Of course, I
Personally can't see why any lop-eared jackass would ambrace such a bankrupt
collection of ideas...."). As long as that sort of discourse is the rule,
everyone is demeaned and "Nothing Furthers."
The attack on the Humanist Manifesto is not unlike another tactic
I cannot help but notice: that of choosing either a poorly articulated
or extreme point of view (the HM is, I think, rahter prone to lampoon
by a fair number of my serious Humanist friends as being high in Nylon Kapok
content), which is then implicitly taken in the argument to be a representative
point of view. WHen we quote the Reverend Jeeter Rightwing's views on
Busing as a tool of Satan, anyone who would support the faith is then
tempted to endorse his position (Well, Jeeter thinks X, which is patently
stupid, so EVERYTHING Jeeter says must be equally fallacious....). WHile
that is a great debate tactic, it's logically fallacious. We ALL do it-even
me. It's always much easier to do this than to acknowledge the REAL possibility
that there is another valid point of view (which excludes us).
It would be most charitable (I think) to say that our critic of
the Humanist manifesto is indeed showing his true colours. THey are also the
very same colours of everyone who would flame against him. They are the same
colours of anyone who sees him/herself sitting quietly through a torrent
of perceived abuse, all the while dying to find an excuse to turn the tables.
How many board meetings with unfriendly management, courses in Marxist analysis,
or Republican press conferences have you sat through without this feeling?
You got any stones you want to sling? Here, you can use my old one...
I'm going home. Stoning the adulteress is no longer any sport.
g(I hope I've picked on everyone to an equal degree-myself included)taylor
@cornell
y