carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/06/85)
Clayton Cramer writes: >... if anything, there has been a resurgence >of racial hatred, at least partly because of the government's racist >affirmative action programs. [...] ^^^^^^ > Now in their >particular case, they may have been passed over for promotion for other >reasons, but knowing that government imposed racism *is* happening gives ^^^^^^ >them a reason to believe that they have been victimized themselves. "Affirmative action is racism." "Affirmative action is sexism." [Clayton forgot this one.] "Taxation is theft." "Profit is theft." "Abortion is murder." "Conscription is slavery." "Fascism is socialism." "Socialism is fascism." et cetera... Here we have one of the net's favorite forms of argument: the Argument From Name-Calling. For those who would like to get in on the game, here's how it is done: Select a practice or belief that you don't like. Next, select a category of actions or beliefs that almost everyone strongly opposes, such as racism, fascism, or murder. Now construct a definition of this latter category such that the practice you don't like fits this definition. Congrats, you've just proved that the practice you oppose is wrong! For instance, define racism as "basing an action on a person's race," or define theft as "a transfer of wealth which is or could be enforced by the use of force"; you've just proved that affirmative action and taxation are unjust, since everyone knows that racism and theft are unjust! But the classic use of this form of argument is to prove that abortion is wrong. Here's another example which no one has thought of yet. Let's say you belong to a religious sect that believes that surgery is wrong. Now define violence as "any action which damages the tissues of a person's body." Therefore, since all surgery involves cutting someone up, SURGERY IS VIOLENCE and is thus proved to be immoral. The Argument From Name-Calling is a favorite of the feeble-minded and of Usenetters, since it relieves one of the necessity for coming up with a coherent philosophical argument that the practice you oppose is unjust or immoral. Philosophical reasoning is hard work and makes your head hurt; avoid it wherever possible. I'll bet anything that there is someone reading this who can't figure out what is wrong with the Argument From Name-Calling. Anyway, since it can't be banned from the net, let's all learn how to use it. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/12/85)
> Clayton Cramer writes: > > >... if anything, there has been a resurgence > >of racial hatred, at least partly because of the government's racist > >affirmative action programs. [...] ^^^^^^ > > Now in their > >particular case, they may have been passed over for promotion for other > >reasons, but knowing that government imposed racism *is* happening gives > ^^^^^^ > >them a reason to believe that they have been victimized themselves. > > "Affirmative action is racism." > "Affirmative action is sexism." [Clayton forgot this one.] > "Taxation is theft." > "Profit is theft." > "Abortion is murder." > "Conscription is slavery." > "Fascism is socialism." > "Socialism is fascism." > et cetera... > > Here we have one of the net's favorite forms of argument: the > Argument From Name-Calling. For those who would like to get in on > the game, here's how it is done: Select a practice or belief that > you don't like. Next, select a category of actions or beliefs that > almost everyone strongly opposes, such as racism, fascism, or murder. > Now construct a definition of this latter category such that the > practice you don't like fits this definition. Congrats, you've just > proved that the practice you oppose is wrong! For instance, define > racism as "basing an action on a person's race," or define theft as > "a transfer of wealth which is or could be enforced by the use of > force"; you've just proved that affirmative action and taxation are > unjust, since everyone knows that racism and theft are unjust! But > the classic use of this form of argument is to prove that abortion is > wrong. > > Here's another example which no one has thought of yet. Let's say > you belong to a religious sect that believes that surgery is wrong. > Now define violence as "any action which damages the tissues of a > person's body." Therefore, since all surgery involves cutting > someone up, SURGERY IS VIOLENCE and is thus proved to be immoral. > > The Argument From Name-Calling is a favorite of the feeble-minded and > of Usenetters, since it relieves one of the necessity for coming up > with a coherent philosophical argument that the practice you oppose > is unjust or immoral. Philosophical reasoning is hard work and makes > your head hurt; avoid it wherever possible. > > I'll bet anything that there is someone reading this who can't figure > out what is wrong with the Argument From Name-Calling. Anyway, since > it can't be banned from the net, let's all learn how to use it. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Believe as you wish, Mr. Carnes. When I worked as an employment agent, I saw, and not rarely, companies specifying the race and sex of the person to occupy a particular position, because it was necessary to maintain their government contracts. I will agree that affirmative action, in some abstract sense, is not supposed to be racist or sexist; it certainly works out to be same to thing on a practical level, because there are a lot of people in this country who view me, you, and everyone else not as individuals, deserving individual dignity and attention, but as classes, races, sexes, and groups. Affirmative action *is* racism, as it is practiced, and that isn't name calling; that's any definition of racism you can come up with except the one I suspect you really mean: "It's OK to discriminate, as long as it's against white males."