pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/01/84)
This type of reasoning isn't new. We're all used to thinking
of Jews as humans, but in Nazi Germany they were "Creatures 'murdered'
legally".
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/04/84)
From Paul Dubuc: > This type of reasoning isn't new. We're all used to thinking > of Jews as humans, but in Nazi Germany they were "Creatures 'murdered' > legally". Why is it that people never tire of inflammatory, specious references to Nazism. This has got to be one of the most perverse forms of argument on the net: Make a connection between your opponent's viewpoint and Nazis (it doesn't matter how tenuous). Then don't say anything else because everyone knows that Nazi Germany was one of the lowest points in recorded civilization. In fact, hope you don't have to say anything else, because starting from that point, anything you try to say will only make you look sillier yet. (People who argue by comparing their opponents to Nazis are only trying to win their arguments by appeal to the same empty, emotional rhetoric approach that the Nazis used to rise to power...no, wait a minute, I've got to work on this one...:-) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (08/04/84)
Thank you for the venn diagram, melissa. It pointed out a distinction that I want to make. The problem with the fetus is that it is put into the set of "living things legal to kill" now, but if given enough time, suddenly hops (with a maddening volition of it's own, it seems :-) into the set of humans (or "living things not legal to kill"). It is the only entity that, at different times of it's life, has occupied both sets. Ok. WHEN does it make the transition? (oh no! here's the old "where do you draw the line" argument. It's fair to ask here, however, for the definition of the sets requires that the question be asked). If it does not make the transition, then it behaves like the magic problem that is being sought to prove that P=NP, for feti become babies, who become adolescents, who become adults, who contribute articles to this newsgroup. If it NEVER transitions out of the "legal to kill" group, then "legal to kill"="not legal to kill", which is EXACTLY what we pro-life people have been worried about. Two solutions exist: 1. The fetus was never in the "legal to kill" group at all. However, this brings up the question of how two entities, in the "legal to kill" group could combine to create an entity that hops the group boundaries into the "not legal to kill" group. A good question that I haven't gotten a decent answer for yet. 2. The fetus IS in the "legal to kill" group, but gains properties that shifts it into the "not legal to kill" group. Quite plausible, since the argument for the death penalty is that the beings being executed have committed certain acts that shifted them out of the "legal to kill" group. Could also be an answer to the question raised in solution #1. However, we pro-life people would like to have those properties enumerated and put into law, otherwise some nut with a toothbrush moustache might start shifting a lot of members from the "not legal to kill" group into the "legal to kill" group for some asinine reasons. Some might argue that preservation of health, life, property, reputation, convenience of SOMEBODY ELSE is sufficient reason to kill the fetus. (Why the same reasons do not apply to criminals rubbing out the witnesses against them is a bit unclear to me, however). Jeepers. That Venn diagram REALLY cleared things up for me! Thanks again, melissa. Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech
mngrve@gatech.UUCP (Marc Goodman) (08/14/84)
[chomp chomp gobble gobble] In evaluating any moral or ethical system it is often necessary to draw upon past examples of similar systems to support ones arguments. In recent years a favorite example has been the Nazi system. The reason for these comparisons is that it is HARD to find examples of systems which are "indisputably" evil. Since you have put yourself into the position of criticizing someones choice of example, I suggest you give them a "legal" set of comparators so that they don't have to worry about angering you. As for me, the following comparisons are all valid: X is bad because the Nixon administration believed X and look what they did. X is bad because the Russians use X daily. X is bad because of what happened at the S. D. McDonald's. X is bad because UNIX/VMS/ITS/RSX-11/etc. use X. Please, please, please tell me which of the above you will allow me to write/think/say... Without meaningless rhetoric (human) life itself would be impossible. Marc Goodman mngrve@gatech Didn't the Nazis/Russians/<your choice here> tell us what we were allowed to say?
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/16/84)
> In evaluating any moral or ethical system it is often necessary to > draw upon past examples of similar systems to support ones arguments. > In recent years a favorite example has been the Nazi system. The > reason for these comparisons is that it is HARD to find examples of > systems which are "indisputably" evil. > > Since you have put yourself into the position of criticizing someones > choice of example, I suggest you give them a "legal" set of comparators > so that they don't have to worry about angering you. The "legal set of comparators" includes at most those systems for which a cogent and significant analogy to the comparand exists. Stated differently, don't call it "Nazi-like" just because you don't like it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
mngrve@gatech.UUCP (08/17/84)
> In evaluating any moral or ethical system it is often necessary to > draw upon past examples of similar systems to support ones arguments. > In recent years a favorite example has been the Nazi system. The > reason for these comparisons is that it is HARD to find examples of > systems which are "indisputably" evil. > > Since you have put yourself into the position of criticizing someones > choice of example, I suggest you give them a "legal" set of comparators > so that they don't have to worry about angering you. [me] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "legal set of comparators" includes at most those systems for which a cogent and significant analogy to the comparand exists. Stated differently, don't call it "Nazi-like" just because you don't like it. [Dick Dunn] --------------------------------------------------------------------------. Good. Now we have something concrete to work with. Specifically, we are to make comparisons to that for which a "cogent and significant analogy to the comparand exists." Now we are left to define what "cogent" means, and what we are to consider "significant." :^) One person's cogency is another person's idiocy. Some people may find a response such as the above response cogent, some others might find it idiotic. Certainly, a response to a request for guidelines in debating in a reasonable way where the response consists of nothing specific may be considered cogent, but can it be considered significant? I am led to believe that Dick Dunn's definition of significance is very similar to my own-- anything which will help you to "win" a discussion is significant. :^) Anyway, the fact remains: 1. You have failed to define what constitutes a good analogy. 2. You have failed to quantify the the necessary amount of corelation between a topic and an analogy before that analogy is acceptable to yourself 3. You have not offered any qualitative information on what can be used to judge whether an analogy is a "good" analogy or a "bad" analogy. 4. You have set yourself up as ultimate arbitrator of reality (analogy division) :^) 5. You have not given any specific examples of what you consider to be good analogies and what you consider to be bad analogies. 6. You made a sweeping generalization about an entire class of analogies without deigning to attack any specific cases which you found offensive thereby missing out on a great opportunity to educate us all in poor analogy detection. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are going to claim that an analogy is bad, you must point to specific ramifications of the analogy and show how they are not bared out in that which is being analogized. You must point to specific features of the comparison which are incorrect/inappropriate. Example: If someone says that Donald Duck is like World War III then it is appropriate to argue: I do not think that analogy is valid because Donald Duck is a fictional cartoon character and World War III is a fictional Geopolitical conflict. It is not correct to argue: That is stupid, everyone always makes comparisons to Donald Duck when they argue, and if anyone does that again I am going to start frothing at the mouth and destroying the furniture. :^) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Which came first, the eye or the I? Marc Goodman CSNet: mngrve @ GaTech ARPA: mngrve.GaTech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!mngrve