From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Content-free Discourse (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:16:39 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.


As I've said before, I'm a bigger fool than Richard Crisp for taking
him seriously.  To those who are already acquainted with me, my
foolishness is a simple matter of public record.  When it comes to
new friends, however, I'd like them to hear the worst from me before
they hear it from pus-heads like Richard Crisp.  So, once again, let
it be known far and wide that I'm a bigger fool than Richard Crisp.

Now, on to business.


In article <y08m!2c.crisp@netcom.com>,
crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.234314.13656@athena.mit.edu>,
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>,
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>>Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and
>>>a Democratically-controlled Congress will keep a lid on
>>>spending is fooling themselves.  
>>
>>I have quoted the entire body of this post -- one statement.
>>
>>This is the sort of statement that reveals more about its
>>author than about its own content.  It is irrefutable because
>>it denies the possibility of refutation.  It says:
>>
>>	If [A] believes X, then [A]'s thought process is flawed.
>>
>>How is [A] supposed to refute this sort of statement?  Any response
>>that [A] cares to make is immediately dismissed as another instance
>>of [A]'s self-delusion.  In the sense that it demands silent
>>acquiescence, it is, essentially, a religious statement.
>>
>
>Well one case that quickly comes to mind is:
>
>	If a person believes the Earth is flat, then their thought
> 		process is flawed.
>
>A religious statement? Perhaps. Most people believe it to be true.


Richard Crisp: since no one can really be as stupid as you *appear* to
be, I have to assume that you just weren't paying attention.

My argument is this: if [A] believes X, you can't change [A]'s mind
by insulting his or her mind.  It doesn't matter what X is.  Even
if X is patently absurd, insult does not constitute argument.  No one
ever changed the flat-earthers' minds by calling them names.  Get it?

Here's another example that should hit home:

   If Richard Crisp believes that he makes even a tiny bit of sense,
   he is fooling himself.

Refute that, Richard Crisp.  YOU can't do it.  No matter what YOU say,
I can always come back and remind YOU that YOU are fooling yourself.
There's a Latin name for this sort of tactic, but I won't bore you
with it -- what I want to know is: would you call it reasoned argument?
Or don't you have any idea what "reasoned argument" means?


> "The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
> public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler


     "Adolf!  You bad boy!  You've peed your pants again!
      Go to bed NOW!  And no playing with your willie!"

                                 --  Adolf Hitler's Mom


     "Life is a battle of wits and you, Richard Crisp, are unarmed.
      Too bad there isn't a constitutional amendment to help you out."

                                 --  Just me


> Very Dangerous Times Indeed!

No doubt about that, Dick.


Dhanesh

PS:  I'm sure that, like Doug Holtsinger,
     you are a Super Surfer.  OK?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections