hbb@mtx5d.UUCP (H.B.Braude) (05/24/85)
> Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" > and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or > some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't it? This is an example of a type of debating tactic that I have seen over and over again in different places and it bothers me. What bothers me has nothing to do with the topic of the debates where it is used, but the very tactic itself. This is a form of straw-man. A straw-man usually takes the form of one person in a debate taking the words of an opponent, molding and shaping those words into something very silly and then proceeding to knock down the new, silly statement. It doesn't in anyway disprove or rebuff the original statement, but it can embarrass an opponent into submission or it can sway the opinions of an audience not familiar with such sophisticated weaponry. The example we have here is another form of straw-man, but in this case, the person takes an exact quote of the other person's words and demonstrates that by substituting some of words in the sentence, the statement can be turned into something idiotic. The sheer number of legitimate and well respected masterpieces that can be turned into meaningless drivel through the employ of this method is absolutely mind boggling. If you disagree with another person's statement, argue your view on the merit of the content of the original statement, not on the merit of its structure or, worse, on the merit of a statement you made. -- Harlan B. Braude {most "backbone" sites}!mtx5d!hbb
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (05/29/85)
In article <682@mtx5d.UUCP> hbb@mtx5d.UUCP (H.B.Braude) writes: >> Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" >> and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or >> some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't it? >This is an example of a type of debating tactic that I have seen > ... >The example we have here is another form of straw-man, but in >this case, the person takes an exact quote of the other person's >words and demonstrates that by substituting some of words in the >sentence, the statement can be turned into something idiotic. In this case though, I would argue that the author was attempting to show that racism and sexism (particularly orientationism) are very similar. Anti-semitic tirades are ugly and should be opposed by all reasonable people. Anti-homosexual tirades are just as ugly, and should be opposed by the same reasonable people. It is sometimes usefull to show people how the same sort of "logic" that they use to condem others can be applied to themselves also.
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (05/31/85)
> In this case though, I would argue that the author was attempting > to show that racism and sexism (particularly orientationism) are > very similar. Anti-semitic tirades are ugly and should be opposed > by all reasonable people. Anti-homosexual tirades are just as ugly, > and should be opposed by the same reasonable people. The "reasoning" in the straw-man approach was: Antisemitism is bad. (ASSUMPTION) Anti-homosexuality is bad. (ASSUMPTION) Anti-homosexuality is like antisemitism. (ASSUMPTION) If you are anti-homosexual you are like an antisemite. (CONCLUSION) Since antisemitism is bad anti-homosexuality is bad. (CIRCULAR CONCLUSION) Note that the final conclusion is the same as the initial assumption. > It is sometimes > usefull to show people how the same sort of "logic" that they use > to condem others can be applied to themselves also. I did not use any sort of false logic to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. I simply stated the fact that the Torah considers this to be abominable. R. Rosen was therefore not mirroring any of my logic. He was simply camoflaging his arbitrary assumption via the guise of a logical argument. Yitzchok Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/31/85)
>>In this case though, I would argue that the author was attempting >>to show that racism and sexism (particularly orientationism) are >>very similar. Anti-semitic tirades are ugly and should be opposed >>by all reasonable people. Anti-homosexual tirades are just as ugly, >>and should be opposed by the same reasonable people. > The "reasoning" in the straw-man approach was: > > Antisemitism is bad. (ASSUMPTION) > Anti-homosexuality is bad. (ASSUMPTION) > Anti-homosexuality is like antisemitism. (ASSUMPTION) > If you are anti-homosexual you are like an antisemite. (CONCLUSION) > Since antisemitism is bad anti-homosexuality is bad. (CIRCULAR > CONCLUSION) > > Note that the final conclusion is the same as the initial assumption. The REAL line of reasoning was (and is) as follows: Antisemitism is hatred for Jews. [DEFINITION] Antihomosexuality is hatred for homosexuals. [DEFINITION] Samet dislikes hatred for Jews (only because of self-interest?) [ASSUMPTION] Samet preaches hatred for homosexuals. [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] Samet feels there is no double standard or hypocrisy in saying "It's NOT O.K. to hate Jews, but it IS O.K. to hate homosexuals." [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] Samet feels there is some sort of difference between hatred for different groups, feeling that it is all right to hate some but not all right to hate others, though he cannot produce evidence to support this conclusion. A Nazi/anti-Semite/bigot of any variety feels there is some sort of difference between hatred for different groups (e.g., his own should not be hated, other groups can and should be), though he cannot support evidence to support this conclusion. Question: Is Samet's position ANY DIFFERENT from that of the bigot? >>It is sometimes >>usefull to show people how the same sort of "logic" that they use >>to condem others can be applied to themselves also. > I did not use any sort of false logic to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. > I simply stated the fact that the Torah considers this to be abominable. > R. Rosen was therefore not mirroring any of my logic. He was simply > camoflaging his arbitrary assumption via the guise of a logical argument. Oh. (The discourse above clearly contradicts this and shows it to be blatantly false. There are no arbitrary assumptions except on the part of Mr. Samet, who assumes the veracity of certain books.) -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher) (06/02/85)
> Samet preaches hatred for homosexuals. [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] > Samet feels there is no double standard or hypocrisy in saying > "It's NOT O.K. to hate Jews, but it IS O.K. to hate > homosexuals." [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] >-- >"Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Wait a second, lets not escalate things here. As far as I ever heard on this net or elsewhere there is no justification for hating homosexuals in the hallacha and no one has claimed there is. To put words in Yitzchak (sp?) Samet's mouth, I believe he said that homosexual acts are not legal acts according to the Talmud. These acts carry a certain punishment and from that we can judge how bad an act it is. I believe that the punishment for desecrating the sabbath is worse than that for a homosexual act. Thus one can infer that active homosexuals are bad but not as bad as reform Jews. Of course I might have missed something and Samet either could be debating from some different understanding of the hallacha or inconsistent with his own beliefs (I am inconsistent so he can be too). Anyway claiming that he is preaching hatred is adding emotionalism unnecessarily. We don't need to help increase entropy it does quite well on its own. -David Sher
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/02/85)
> A Nazi/anti-Semite/bigot of any variety feels there is some sort of > difference between hatred for different groups (e.g., > his own should not be hated, other groups can and should > be), though he cannot support evidence to support this > conclusion. > Question: Is Samet's position ANY DIFFERENT from that of the bigot? I have answered this and other related questions thoroughly several times. R. Rosen chooses to ignore both my answers and my counter charges and to reiterate the question endlessly. Rather than subject net readers to further repetition, I invite anyone who is genuinely interested in an answer to read what I have already written. Yitzchok Samet
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/03/85)
> Wait a second, lets not escalate things here. As far as I ever heard on > this net or elsewhere there is no justification for hating homosexuals in > the hallacha and no one has claimed there is. I don't know if your halachic statement is correct, but it is true that I did not address hatred. My point was to fight ATTITUDES which encourage or condone homosexuality. However, there is definitely basis in halacha for fighting and hating those who campaign to corrupt Jewish morality. (This was discussed on the net a few months ago.) I prefer to point out how such people are illogical and hypocritical rather than discussing hatred. Often this brings a hateful reaction from them, which exposes their true nature. > ... I believe that the punishment for > desecrating the sabbath is worse than that for a homosexual act. Thus one > can infer that active homosexuals are bad but not as bad as reform Jews. The mishna in Sanhedrin states that one is permitted to intervene to prevent a (male) homosexual act by killing the would-be perpetrator, if necessary. This is not true with respect to shabbos violators. This would seem to contradict your conclusion. > Of course I might have missed something and Samet either could be debating > from some different understanding of the hallacha or inconsistent with his > own beliefs (I am inconsistent so he can be too). To clarify, I presented arguments from two points of view: 1) From a Torah standpoint, condemnation of homosexuality is self-consistent, since the Torah regards this as evil. 2) Even from a non-Torah standpoint, the approach typified by R. Rosen is riddled with internal inconsistencies. > Anyway claiming that > he is preaching hatred is adding emotionalism unnecessarily. We don't need > to help increase entropy it does quite well on its own. I agree that the central issues have been clouded by irrelevant and unfactual charges. Unfortunately, entropy is irreversible. Yitzchok Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/04/85)
>> A Nazi/anti-Semite/bigot of any variety feels there is some sort of >> difference between hatred for different groups (e.g., >> his own should not be hated, other groups can and should >> be), though he cannot support evidence to support this >> conclusion. >> Question: Is Samet's position ANY DIFFERENT from that of the bigot? > I have answered this and other related questions thoroughly several times. Yes, indeed you have. By not giving direct answers to these questions, by avoiding the very question I ask above, you have in fact given us all the actual answer to the question. You could have given a simple "yes" or "no" to the above question followed by corroborative evidence. Your unwillingness (and apparent inability) to do so speaks for itself. > R. Rosen chooses to ignore both my answers and my counter charges and to > reiterate the question endlessly. What countercharges? I have answered any pseudocharges you have brought forth, mostly revolving around complaints about being intolerant of beliefs involving intolerance. I have also given detailed reasoning behind my answers. You are clearly no better than the rightwing Christians, or even the Nazis whom you despise. Your intolerance of other people is at the bottom line UNJUSTIFIABLE. The basis for your choosing to be intolerant, your holy texts, are just as arbitrary basis for choosing to be intolerant, and thus just as justifiable, as those of the rightwing Christians and the Nazis they emulate. And until you can show otherwise, then the answer to the question above, is there any difference between you and the other bigots, is a resounding NO. > Rather than subject net readers to further repetition, I invite anyone who > is genuinely interested in an answer to read what I have already written. ... and to see my point in vivid living color. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/04/85)
>>Samet preaches hatred for homosexuals. [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] >>Samet feels there is no double standard or hypocrisy in saying >> "It's NOT O.K. to hate Jews, but it IS O.K. to hate >> homosexuals." [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] ----[ROSEN] > Wait a second, lets not escalate things here. As far as I ever heard on > this net or elsewhere there is no justification for hating homosexuals in > the hallacha and no one has claimed there is. To put words in Yitzchak (sp?) > Samet's mouth, I believe he said that homosexual acts are not legal acts > according to the Talmud. These acts carry a certain punishment and from that > we can judge how bad an act it is. I would think that punishing a person because you had some arbitrary law that called his/her act abominable even though that act caused you and yours no personal harm is very much a symptom of hatred. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (06/05/85)
In article <9986@rochester.UUCP> sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher) writes: >> Samet preaches hatred for homosexuals. [EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE] >Wait a second, lets not escalate things here. As far as I ever heard on >this net or elsewhere there is no justification for hating homosexuals in >the hallacha and no one has claimed there is. To put words in Yitzchak (sp?) >Samet's mouth, I believe he said that homosexual acts are not legal acts >according to the Talmud. These acts carry a certain punishment and from that >we can judge how bad an act it is. I believe that the punishment for >desecrating the sabbath is worse than that for a homosexual act. Thus one >can infer that active homosexuals are bad but not as bad as reform Jews. >Of course I might have missed something and Samet either could be debating >from some different understanding of the hallacha or inconsistent with his >own beliefs (I am inconsistent so he can be too). Anyway claiming that >he is preaching hatred is adding emotionalism unnecessarily. We don't need >to help increase entropy it does quite well on its own. >-David Sher Obviously, you haven't been following this discussion, David. I'll quote Samet: "The Mishna in Sanhedrin equates someone attempting a homosexual act with an attempted rapist or murderer, and permits us to intervene by killing the perpetrator." As far as I am concerned, anyone claiming any justification for murdering me, equating my actions with those of murderers or rapists, and claiming that "We should wage war against the fools and reshoim who attempt to soften the social sanctions which were always in place, among decent Jews and non-Jews.", is engaged in the practice of hatred against me. I do not care if his actions are based on some so-called Holy Book. Until recently, Jewish people have only attempted to impose their biblical laws on other Jews. I won't make major objection to that method of practice, but when anybody starts to attempt to apply their religious rules to non-believers, they are stepping out of line. Samet also shows an astounding lack of historical perspective on this issue. Jews have been surrounded by cultures practicing homosexuality as a normal lifestyle until very recently compared to the greater than 6000 years of Jewish history.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/05/85)
> However, there is definitely basis in halacha for > fighting and hating those who campaign to corrupt Jewish morality. (This > was discussed on the net a few months ago.) I prefer to point out how such > people are illogical and hypocritical rather than discussing hatred. Often > this brings a hateful reaction from them, which exposes their true nature. > [SAMET] This is called, in psychology, an act of projection. That's what's been done to you, my friend, and your true nature has certainly been exposed. > To clarify, I presented arguments from two points of view: > > 1) From a Torah standpoint, condemnation of homosexuality is self-consistent, > since the Torah regards this as evil. Mein Kampf is self-consistent. > 2) Even from a non-Torah standpoint, the approach typified by R. Rosen is > riddled with internal inconsistencies. Such as? You've repeatedly asserted that there ARE, but you've never shown any. I already addressed your complaints about being intolerant of intolerants, and you (of course) had nothing to say in response. Who's riddled with what? > I agree that the central issues have been clouded by irrelevant and unfactual > charges. Unfortunately, entropy is irreversible. Unfortunately, in many case, so is blind religious hatred. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
wkp@lanl.ARPA (06/06/85)
In article <5310@fortune.UUCP> Richard Brower writes: >As far as I am concerned, anyone claiming any >justification for murdering me, equating my actions with those of murderers >or rapists, and claiming that "We should wage war against the fools and >reshoim who attempt to soften the social sanctions which were always in >place, among decent Jews and non-Jews.", is engaged in the practice of >hatred against me. I do not care if his actions are based on some so-called >Holy Book. Now wait a minute, Richard. Just because a wacko like Samet has access to a public forum doesn't mean that you can take potshots against the Torah. I encourage you to respond directly to Jewish Nazis, but there is no need to attack the entire Jewish people or Jewish tradition because of one misguided person. -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (06/11/85)
In article <26879@lanl.ARPA> wkp@lanl.ARPA writes: >In article <5310@fortune.UUCP> Richard Brower writes: >>I do not care if his actions are based on some so-called Holy Book. > >Now wait a minute, Richard. Just because a wacko like Samet has access to >a public forum doesn't mean that you can take potshots against the Torah. >I encourage you to respond directly to Jewish Nazis, but there is no need to >attack the entire Jewish people or Jewish tradition because of one misguided >person. I shall assume that the line of my posting that I left above is what you are complaining about. I thought that I made clear in the rest of my posting that I was complaining about the use of the Torah as a justification for bigotry and hatred. I personally have found the Torah a useful book if read carefully, although, not being a Jew or even a Christian, I do not look at it as being "Holy". Jewish people throughout history have been a force for good that few other races or religions can match. Over 6000 years ago, they had a moral code that was unmatched by any other anywhere. But no people can rest on their accomplishments of 6000 years ago. If my morals were the same as those of my ancesters 6000 years ago, everyone would rightly think me primative. The same should be true of anyone else. I apologise for leaving any impression that I was attacking the entire Jewish people. That is certainly not what I intended. Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower