jj@alice.UUCP (10/03/86)
I haven't read nut.politics (or talk.bullpucky, or what have you) for over a year. Due to a wait for a printer, I decided to look into it again, just for the heck of it. What do I find? I find : <Noted pseudo-arch-conservative>, running other's lives in the name of freedom. <Arch-liberal/socialist (which has never truly been clear) deception generator>, using the usual deceptive argumentitive tricks. Some things never change. A MORE charitable person than I might observe that talk.politics is doomed to the same fate as real <i.e. non-hacker> politics. -- WOBEGON WON'T BE GONE, TEDDY BEAR PICNIC AT 11. "In one year, there's gonna be ten millon lawyers" (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/05/86)
In article <6148@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >I find : > > <Noted pseudo-arch-conservative>, running other's lives in the > name of freedom. > > <Arch-liberal/socialist (which has never truly been >clear) deception generator>, using the usual deceptive argumentitive tricks. ... and jj, who still drops in now and then to say "tsk tsk" ... >Some things never change. I can't comment on the argumentative tactics of Mr. P.-A. Conservative because I don't know which person or persons you are referring to. However, re. Mr. Deception Generator, it has occurred to me that he is not knowingly deceiving people. After all, in order for his bogus arguments to work, their bogosity must be sufficiently non-obvious that maybe even D. G. himself might not be aware of it. If political thought is going down the drain, it's because people are so easily convinced of beliefs by invalid arguments. If, as I believe, they are mostly honest, they will then try to convince others, usually using the same invalid argument that convinced them. If a sufficiently large number of people become convinced of a mistaken belief, their combined voices in the media can effectively drown out alternative ideas, and whole countries can end up holding mistaken beliefs. The hundredth monkey might make monkeys of us all. You, jj, could drop into nut.polemics now and then, pick an invalid argument, and show why it's invalid. This way you could do some good. Or, you could just drop in now and then and say "tsk tsk". -- David Canzi