From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dismiss the Liberal!
Summary: more nonsense from Clayton Cramer
Keywords: shame
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:01:08 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <11793@optilink.UUCP>
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug14.021522.14721@husc3.harvard.edu>, 
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <11748@optilink.UUCP>
>>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

MZ:
>>>>To apply his own criteria, in his own words, Mr Cramer "reflexively looks
>>>>for a solution to" "the fundamental problem of savages on the loose" "by
>>>>bringing in more government control over people's lives"; therefore by his
>>>>own lights Mr Cramer "is a liberal, and should be dismissed".

CC:
>>>Notice that word: "reflexively."  Go look in a dictionary, if you are
>>>unsure what it means.

MZ:
>>Indeed, I am unsure of what *you* mean by that term -- is it to be
>>interpreted in its grammatical sense, as designating a verb having an
>>identical subject and direct object, as `embarrassed' in the sentence
>>`Clayton Cramer embarrassed himself'? or is it to be taken in its pop
>>psychological sense, as derivative of `reflex'?  In the latter case, t

CC:
>I suggest that you attempt to fit the several possible meanings and
>see which makes sense.  Does the grammatical sense fit?  No, not
>really.  Could it refer to a tap on the knee with a hammer?  No,
>not really, unless you envision public policy being done with small
>hammers.  Perhaps it refers to the notion of an action taken by
>the autonomic reflex system, without any action by the brain of
>the person involved.  Hmmm.  This seems to fit, doesn't it?
>Most people (and few AI programs) can correctly identify which of
>several possible meanings fit into such a paragraph.  Are you simply
>not an advanced enough AI program?

You seem to be consistently missing the point of this exercise, which is to
elicit your own definition of `liberal', in your own words.  Based on your
above assertion that a liberal is characterized by "an action taken by the
autonomic reflex system, without any action by the brain of the person
involved", it is evident that your use of this term is purely pejorative,
unencumbered by any rational meaning.

MZ:
>>would seem that your definition exempts such _reflective_ advocates of
>>"more government control over people's lives" as John Rawls and Ronald
>>Dworkin from the threat of being dismissed by Clayton Cramer, which

CC:
>I suppose it would.  

And here is further proof: were you interested in refuting political
liberalism, you wouldn't have been able to shrug off ther need to address
the arguments of its principal proponents.  Unfortunately, you are only
interested in using this term as a label that ends any discussion, rather
than as an accurate attribution of political position, that would further
your dialogue with its partisans.  In effect, you are exhibiting your
systematic, callow preference for engaging in a shouting match, instead of
meaningful exchange.  Of course, anywhere outside of grade school, this
sort of attitude will effectively curtail your effectiveness as a political
force.  Hence your self-pitying remarks concerning your unpopularity.

MZ:
>>undoubtedly has kept these statist scoundrels awake at night until this
>>day.  Please elaborate: do you really qualify as a liberal only such an
>>individual who shares your unfortunate propensity for expressing his
>>thoughts half-formed?

CC:
>I express my thought fully formed where there is someone willing
>to read them non-sophistically.

And by "non-sophistically", you undoubtedly mean "favorably to Clayton
Cramer".  Or do you happen to have a rational definition at hand?  No, I
didn't think so -- just another content-free label to hang on your
opponents.

CC:
>>>Further, the government is already exercising tremendous control 
>>>over the lives of violent criminals -- they just don't bother to 
>>>lock them up after convicting them, or at least not for long.
>>>Doing it right requires no more control than they now exert --
>>>and focusing on violent criminals, instead of drug offenders,
>>>would reduce the number of people actually under the government's
>>>control.

MZ:
>>This is, of course, sheer sophistry.  Consider the analogy of moving
>>violations.  Now repeat after me: "the government is already exercising
>>tremendous control over the lives of reckless drivers -- they just don't
>>bother to lock them up after convicting them, or at least not for long.
>>Doing it right requires no more control than they now exert -- and focusing
>>on reckless drivers, instead of drug offenders, would reduce the number of
>>people actually under the government's control."

CC:
>In fact, your paragraph is the essence of sophistry.  I take you 
>cannot see a difference between rape and speeding?

Indeed I can see it; however it is up to you to articulate this difference
by including it in your own definition.  Note that at this point the only
way to prevent you from falling under its provenance is to claim that your
advocacy of "bringing in more government control over people's lives" is
not "an action taken by the autonomic reflex system, without any action by
the brain of the person involved".  Such a claim would, in turn, depend on
a favorable evaluation of your intellectual capacities, for which I have no
supporting evidence whatsoever.  On the contrary, as I have conclusively
demonstrated on this thread and elsewhere, in your writing the role of
rational argument is assumed by unbridled vituperation.  "Clayton Cramer
knows exactly what he likes; everything that he doesn't like is ipso facto
deserving of public condemnation", -- such is the substance of your
political position, which in no way warrants an assumption of a functional
central nervous system participating therein.  Given your public advocacy
of "more government control over people's lives" (once again, by your own
definition it matters not at all whether such control is meant to punish
rapists or speeders), your position makes you satisfy your own definition
of a liberal.  Hence, by formulating the said definition, you reveal
yourself as a fool.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

MZ:
>>Are you prepared to maintain that introducing a practice of, say, imposing
>>a mandatory 5-year jail sentence for traffic violations is not a genuine
>>instance of "bringing in more government control over people's lives"?  Or
>>would you prefer to distinguish between "good government control" and "bad
>>government control"?

CC:
>Sure I'll draw that distinction.  It's the difference between
>locking up rapists and murders, and running death camps for
>people of the wrong ethnicity.
>
>You must be planning to teach at the university level.  There's
>no other sensible explanation for your inability to understand
>that rape is a serious crime, and speeding is primarily a revenue
>scheme.

Again, my ability to understand the said difference is not in question;
what is important is that you include this difference, fully articulated,
in your own statements of Clayton Cramer policy.  Call me an optimist, but
I still cherish the hope of eliciting some meaningful arguments from your
side.  Just get that brain working; the rest will be easy.  Once again: are
you interested in giving a cogent version of the Clayton Cramer trademark
definition of liberalism, or do you wish to continue flinging around the
label in question as a meaningless mental borborygmus?

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
>disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
>homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.

And how do you feel about the support for North American Man-Girl Love
Association in the heterosexual community?  Five members already...

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:14802 talk.philosophy.misc:1602 sci.classics:633