garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/24/85)
Andrew Koenig has invented, or is trying to perfect, a new
debating technique. Let's call it the "wild leap," or, if
you want to sound more scholarly, the "remote associates question."
Take a statement on subject A. Find an element in the statement
which bears some vague resemblance (the more superficial, the
better) to another subject, and ask an absurd rhetorical question
about subject B.
This technique doesn't actually add anything (like information)
to the debate (but it probably isn't intended to), but is does
show remarkable creativity (in finding tenuous links between
scarcely related subjects).
How ought one to respond to the Koenig Maneuver? Answering
the question on its merits ("No") is bound to be ineffective --
after all, the asker knows it's a rhetorical question, and
that the responder is unlikely to believe the suggested absurdity.
Attempting to show the tenuousness of the relationship between the
two subjects would probably be counterproductive, as it distracts
the participants from the original topic. I suggest that the
best way to respond is to say, "How clever! The Koenig maneuver
at its finest! No one else would have thought that those two
subjects could be related." This acknowledges the creativity
of the one using the technique, without conceding that anything
has been proven or refuted (for such is not the purpose of the
technique). After this response, discussion of the real topic
can proceed in the normal (?) fashion.
Example:
> > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from
> > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling
> > less than 40 mph.
Here, subject A is the risk of injury from motor vehicles (in
the context of the debate on whether mandatory seat belt laws
should be enacted).
> Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than
> 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed
> in an automobile accident? What if I lie to my car and tell
> it it's far from home when it really isn't? (I know it's not
> nice to lie to cars -- this is just a thought experiment)
Subject B is a (one assumes fictional) car with volition and
sensibilities (which might be offended if its owner told it a
lie). The common thread (and I do mean a thin thread) is that
cars, or motor vehicles, do appear in both. There is a variation
on the wild leap, in that the entire subject B is absurd, rather
than the statement about the subject.
Another example:
> > If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece
> > of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with
> > other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner.
In this case, subject A is the right of the government to restrict the
use of the roads, on the grounds that the government paid for them
(again, in the context of the mandatory seat belt debate).
> In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions
> it pleases on people who use public roads.
Note that the restatement is slightly ambigous, in that it is not clear
whether restrictions can be imposed at all times, or only on the use
of the public road. This ambiguity facilatates the wild leap, below.
> Hmmm...does that mean that the government has the right to say that
> if you use a public road, you are deemed to have given them permission,
> say, to search your home for evidence of any illegal activity?
Subject B, apparently, is the constitutional right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure. The only connection is the word
"right," which was introduced in the above restatement.
Third and last example (from net.abortion -- apologies to net.flame
readers):
> Paul Dubuc says:
> > Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes
> > sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond
> > the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose*
> > of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that
> > goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible.
Here, subject A is the thesis that having a choice implies accepting
a responsibility, this time in the context of the abortion debate.
> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I
> might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously
> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading
> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment?
Subject B is medical treatment of an injury. Here, the tenuous
connection is the veiled equating of abortion, a medical procedure
(according to some) which terminates a life, with the treatment of
injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending, of course,
on the severity of the injury).
To summarize: the Koenig Maneuver is truly an entertaining
(if not edifying) technique. It shows creativity. Keep up
the good work.
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys
PS: Anyone recognize the style of this missive?ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/25/85)
> Example: >>> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from >>> home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling >>> less than 40 mph. > Here, subject A is the risk of injury from motor vehicles (in > the context of the debate on whether mandatory seat belt laws > should be enacted). >> Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than >> 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed >> in an automobile accident? What if I lie to my car and tell >> it it's far from home when it really isn't? (I know it's not >> nice to lie to cars -- this is just a thought experiment) > Subject B is a (one assumes fictional) car with volition and > sensibilities (which might be offended if its owner told it a > lie). The common thread (and I do mean a thin thread) is that > cars, or motor vehicles, do appear in both. There is a variation > on the wild leap, in that the entire subject B is absurd, rather > than the statement about the subject. Gary, this comment of yours merely shows that you are incapable of recognizing a joke when you see one. > Another example: >>> If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece >>> of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with >>> other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. > In this case, subject A is the right of the government to restrict the > use of the roads, on the grounds that the government paid for them > (again, in the context of the mandatory seat belt debate). >> In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions >> it pleases on people who use public roads. > Note that the restatement is slightly ambigous, in that it is not clear > whether restrictions can be imposed at all times, or only on the use > of the public road. This ambiguity facilatates the wild leap, below. >> Hmmm...does that mean that the government has the right to say that >> if you use a public road, you are deemed to have given them permission, >> say, to search your home for evidence of any illegal activity? > Subject B, apparently, is the constitutional right to be free from > unreasonable search and seizure. The only connection is the word > "right," which was introduced in the above restatement. Wrong. Subject B is the right of the government to restrict the use of the roads. If the government has the right to restrict the use of the roads, then it has the right to insist that people who use them do so at the cost of giving up rights they would otherwise have had. I was pointing out that it is unreasonable for the government to be allowed to impose arbitrary requirements on people who use the roads, by giving an example of how this power might be misused. Once you agree that the government should not have unlimited control over people who use the roads, that particular argument for seat belt laws becomes far less convincing. > Third and last example (from net.abortion -- apologies to net.flame > readers): >> Paul Dubuc says: >>> Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes >>> sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond >>> the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* >>> of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that >>> goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. > Here, subject A is the thesis that having a choice implies accepting > a responsibility, this time in the context of the abortion debate. >> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I >> might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously >> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading >> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment? > Subject B is medical treatment of an injury. Here, the tenuous > connection is the veiled equating of abortion, a medical procedure > (according to some) which terminates a life, with the treatment of > injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending, of course, > on the severity of the injury). Subject B is whether it is appropriate to try, after the fact, to minimize the bad effects of losing a gamble. So is subject A. A person who drives a car runs the risk of an accident, and does so by choice. If that choice to take that risk results in an injury, almost everyone would agree that the driver has the right to seek medical treatment to minimize the effects of the injury. A woman who engages in sex runs the risk of becoming pregnant. I was pointing out here that responsibility really isn't an issue, any more than it is an issue about treatments for auto accidents. Granted, there are some people who believe that abortion is morally impermissible, because the fetus is a human being who has the right to live. But that argument has nothing to do with the one I was trying to rebut here. Gary, there's only one thing I can't figure out about your article: did you post it because you really didn't understand my arguments, or did you actually understand them but posted it anyway to try to get others to misunderstand them? --Andrew Koenig
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/26/85)
I'm only going to respond to the example that I am involved in here. Paul Dubuc [me]: }>>> Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes }>>> sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond }>>> the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* }>>> of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that }>>> goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. } Gary Sammuelson: }> Here, subject A is the thesis that having a choice implies accepting }> a responsibility, this time in the context of the abortion debate. } Andrew Koenig: }>> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I }>> might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously }>> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading }>> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment? } Sammuelson: }> Subject B is medical treatment of an injury. Here, the tenuous }> connection is the veiled equating of abortion, a medical procedure }> (according to some) which terminates a life, with the treatment of }> injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending, of course, }> on the severity of the injury). } Koenig: }Subject B is whether it is appropriate to try, after the fact, to }minimize the bad effects of losing a gamble. So is subject A. }A person who drives a car runs the risk of an accident, and does }so by choice. If that choice to take that risk results in an injury, }almost everyone would agree that the driver has the right to seek }medical treatment to minimize the effects of the injury. }A woman who engages in sex runs the risk of becoming pregnant. }I was pointing out here that responsibility really isn't an }issue, any more than it is an issue about treatments for auto }accidents. And you are going to establish that pregnancy as the result of sex is in fact injury? I know a lot of couples who would like to get injured in this way. Does this make them masochists Be consistent. An auto accident injury is inherently an injury. A pregnancy is not. You can't make a pregnancy into an injury simply by saying it was unintended any more than you can say that a willful, self-inflicted injury is not in fact an injury simply because it was intentional. }Granted, there are some people who believe that }abortion is morally impermissible, because the fetus is a human }being who has the right to live. But that argument has nothing }to do with the one I was trying to rebut here. It has everything to do with it. You have to deal with that issue first, don't you? I suppose we could find some people who wouldn't accord the auto accident victim any right to medical treatment if she was Black... Granted, some folks believe Blacks deserve equal treatment, so would you say that has nothing to do with this argument? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/26/85)
(This reply is divided into two parts, one being posted to net.abortion and the other to net.flame.) >>> Paul Dubuc says: >>>> Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes >>>> sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond >>>> the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* >>>> of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that >>>> goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. Andrew Koenig: >>> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I >>> might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously >>> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading >>> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment? Me (paraphrasing myself; hoping for greater clarity and brevity -- changes are in brackets, and are not intended to change the meaning): >> [Paul is talking about accepting responsibility for one's actions.] >> [Andrew is talking about] medical treatment of an injury. >> [Apparently, Andrew equates] abortion, a medical >> procedure (according to some) which terminates a life, with the >> treatment of injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending, >> of course, on the severity of the injury). Andrew replies (again, note brackets): > [I am talking about] whether it is appropriate to try, after the > fact, to minimize the bad effects of losing a gamble. [...] > A person who drives a car runs the risk of an accident, and does > so by choice. If that choice to take that risk results in an injury, > almost everyone would agree that the driver has the right to seek > medical treatment to minimize the effects of the injury. But not everyone would agree that that has any bearing on the abortion issue. (That's a generic problem with analogies.) I suggest the analogy be modified as follows: You are driving your car, and you have an accident in which you are not injured, but someone else is. Is it not evading your responsibility to refuse aid to that injured person? Your action has resulted in a situation in which someone else's life depends on what you do. (Now, who caused the accident may be a factor in determining whose is the responsibility, but not in the analogy I draw below.) > A woman who engages in sex runs the risk of becoming pregnant. > I was pointing out here that responsibility really isn't an > issue, any more than it is an issue about treatments for auto > accidents. Granted, there are some people who believe that > abortion is morally impermissible, because the fetus is a human > being who has the right to live. But that argument has nothing > to do with the one I was trying to rebut here. Now the connection between the analogy as I have modified it, and the abortion issue is this: In the case of pregnancy, two people have taken action resulting in a situation in which someone else's life depends on what at least one of them decides to do next. (Maybe both are involved in that decision, and maybe not.) Note that it is clear (I hope) that the fetus is certainly not responsible for being there. You might conclude (correctly) that I think that the man should also be held responsible for the newly created life. > Gary, there's only one thing I can't figure out about your article: > did you post it because you really didn't understand my arguments, > or did you actually understand them but posted it anyway to try > to get others to misunderstand them? --Andrew Koenig You are, of course, free to believe what you like about my reasons for posting, as I am free to doubt the sincerity of the question. In case those doubts are unfounded, I will answer it: I posted it because I really saw little connection between the statements you responded to and the response you made. More precisely, in my opinion your responses had little bearing on the issue being discussed. In the first two cases, I still feel that way. In the third, your explanation helped some, and so I have attempted to explain why I think your analogy is not valid by modifying the analogy to make it resemble the issue at hand more closely. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys