Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:54:08 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: partisan idiocy

  Mr. -T. continues his offensive

>I know you're more worried about subtle maligning than factual representation

  You called conservative thinking many things, many of
which I quoted.  If you assert that you didn't mean self-
deluding, that hardly changes the ad hominem foundation of
your "liberal rhetoric."

>maybe
>you should get off criticizing me for a minute and intelligently respond to my
>original point.  (Posting info from an expert doesn't *prove* a case.  If that
>were so, we'd have all bowed down to Robert months ago).  Besides, the info
>you posted had to do with the 2nd Amendment; my point was about how
>conservatives (IMO) have cornered the market on *rationalization*

  As justification for your claim that conservatives have cornered
the market on *rationalization* you offered the interpretation of
the second amendment.  I provided a textual analysis from an expert
on language which tends to support the "conservative" reading of the
second amendment.  Are you unable to see how this affects your claim
that the conservative arguments are largely *rationalizations*?

  I also said that some folks believe that rights and the Bill of
Rights are important political issues - that the rights guaranteed
by the constitution should be defended.  This in answer to your
remark about so much "babbling" about individual rights.  It hardly
seems to me to be an issue of rationalization to desire to defend
liberties which are constitutionally guaranteed against the selfless
desire of those who believe they know what is best for us.  Just a
thread ago, there were a number of us "babbling" about individual
rights as concerned flag burning.  Undoubtedly, those leading the
charge in favor of allowing flag burning as a legal activity are
in the business of selling flags.  (Oh, not that I'm saying all of
them are....)  (Um, and not that I will provide any evidence beyond
my bald assertion that they are.)

>I still have yet to hear an answer to the point that pro-gun control people
>have no self-serving or subjective motives for their fight beyond the welfare
>of the nation.

  I think that protecting one's ability to own and use a gun *is*
a self-serving motive.  I think that women who argue against restrictions
or prohibitions on abortion have a self-serving motive.  I think that
those of us who argue against government restrictions on free speech
have self-serving motives.  I know I sure do.  Is that all it takes
to turn rhetoric into rationalization?  (Are pro-choice liberals
also rationalizers?)  (Selfishness is wrong?  If Jimbo the False Dmitry
and most moral man alive is reading this, he's probably having a fit.)

>When you got off the track with
>that "Oh, you made me agree with Robert - oh no!" nonsense, you took the
>responsibility of "taking this too far."

  Ah.  Wounded pride.  At least you have the decency to be ashamed
of that post.  (I didn't follow the thread though, did you have the
decency to apologize?)

  Arguments against gun control based upon guaranteed liberties
and the Bill of Rights are not rationalizations, -T.  That is
kind of the point.  And if that is the best you have to offer
to defend your claim that conservatives have a monopoly on
rationalization, not only does it make for a poor argument,
it makes it look like maybe you are trying to do a little
rationalization of your own.  (Oh, wait, that *and* the fact
that "self-deception" doesn't appear in your post.  Oh, and
the fact that your ad hominem fallacies weren't actually
being used to defend anything...or so you assert.)

  And if you think that the analysis of the text of the
amendment by a qualified scholar of the language isn't
particularly good evidence for an interpretation of the
amendment, I'd welcome reading the evidence you have for
an alternative reading.  And the evidence you have that
this scholar must also be "rationalizing."  I'm breathless
with anticipation.

                                -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU