From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: letter to Rush, what is a liberal?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:13:32 GMT

Steve wrote:
>|>If you think about it, my theory goes a long way to explain the differences
>|>between liberals and conservatives.  For example, if you are the master of
>|>your destiny, in control of your life, then it is wrong to redistribute
>|>wealth, because those who have it, earned it, and those who don't are
>|>themselves to blame for their poverty.

Then I wrote:
>|    Hey, you know, I hadn't thought about it but that's a great way of 
>|measuring the sin of sloth, huh? Nobody becomes poor who didn't deserve 
>|it, and nobody becomes rich who didn't earn it. If poverty is a mark of 
>|sin then there must be all kinds of rich people in heaven, huh?

Then Steve wrote:
>I didn't say that poverty or sloth is a sin, nor have I any belief in
>heaven.  I didn't say anything about the rich (I have wealth -- that
>doesn't mean I'm wealthy).  I also didn't say "the poor deserve it".  I
>didn't mean these things either.

    That's true, you didn't say anything about poverty being a sin. I 
just wanted to goad you into making the statement that you just made. I 
wanted to question your hypothesis in re people being the masters of 
their own destinies. I'm sure that it would be very nice if everyone 
was the master of his own destiny, but that scenario doesn't bear much 
resemblance to the world as I see it.

    I'm sure that you'd agree that it's sad that so many people who 
*could* benefit from taking control of their circumstances fail to do 
so for whatever reason; either by choosing to abuse drugs, or choosing 
to remain in low-paying dead-end jobs instead of going out and really 
hustling. There's certainly a limit to what we can or should do to help 
people who aren't willing to help themselves.

>I said *if* you are the master of your destiny . . . 

    Yes, that's an important disclaimer. All I would add is that the 
number of people who are the masters of their own destinies is regretably 
small. Unfortunately our nation is not abundantly populated with clones of 
Horatio Alger and Ross Perot (though, come to think of it, it might not be
such a bad thing after all -- just imagine a whole nation of people walking 
around talking about being the "Owners of the Country").

>Unfortunately, this seems to be the usual form of argument on the NET: if
>you can't argue against or face the point being made, distort the other
>guy's words until you have something you can argue against or make fun of.

    Oh come on, Steve. You should realize that I'm only trying to emulate
"The Great One" himself. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard 
Rush brilliantly rebut the things that he wished his opponents had really 
said. Besides, I wanted you to disclaim/water-down your statements 
concerning the poor being masters of their destinies. I apologize for 
stooping to such a low-brow debating trick, but 1) it worked and 2) this 
*is* alt.rush-limbaugh.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion