From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: European superiority
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:53:56 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Oct7.184312.22519@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
> In referenced article, gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
> >I would like a chance to point out that I decided to take on a somewhat
> >tongue-in-cheek devil's advocate position after watching the charges
> >against Americans go from fairly solid to incredibly outrageous over
> >a 2-3 day period.
> This I agree with.  Gary manipulated his respondents into several untenable
> positions.  That often happens when peoples buttons are deliberately pushed
> hard.


Hmmm.... I would say that it happens when people claim to be driven by
the truth and the obvious but are actually spouting off bias and at
best misguided rhetoric...

> > By the way, I am Liberal, support the pro-choice movt., believe in 
> >liberal immigration policies, etc. etc.. etc.
> I see nothing in Gary's postings over the years to make this caricature of
> a position any more believeable than the last diametrically opposed one.

 Well, the fact that you haven't seen it means little. My position with
respect to many issues of importance have been made clear in a variety of 
groups - issues from racism to sexism to abortion to censorship have
without exception been what I believe most people would categorize as
liberal positions. Clearly you do not want to believe it but that I'm
afraid does not make it untrue...

> What I do have in my archive, is an email from him which he wrote over four
> years ago.  In it he also claimed exactly opposing views to those which he
> was being heavily attacked for in this very newsgroup.

 This would seem to be consistent no? I find that frequently in this
particular group there is a tendancy towards one-sided arguments. That is
not to say that I am capable or knowledgable enough on many issues to even
attempt to argue the opposite view, but if I am aware of the arguments (and
one has very little excuse for not knowing the views of right-wing
extremists in this country) then I can make the arguments that are likely
to be made by those who do not or will not participate. 

 That isn't to say that I didn't buy anything I posted - I do feel that
tossing blame towards the US for problems of the world is an easy and
often misguided thing to do - however, one need only look at the corrupt
governments whose human-rights abuses are seemingly endless that this
country not only supports with monetary aid but with military aid as well
to see that there are things that simply are not "right" with US policy.
That however is a far cry from making sweeping judgements about
americans based on statements made by the lunatic fringe (Pat Robertson
for example) - certainly there are americans who buy the rhetoric from
the extreme right but they are, in fact, few in numbers. It would
be the same if we were to pass judgement upon all Irish for the acts and
statements of say Sinead O'Connor...

> The cap-in-hand tone of that email is exactly like the above, and the
> posted exchange with many of the same players, was just as extreme.

 True. 

> Who cares, it's really of little interest.  What is clear is that a point
> "proven" by manipulating and provoking the participants into extreme
> positions is bogus and an insult to those attempting to present sincere
> opinions.

 The sincerity of a position means little - the KKK feel pretty damn 
sincere about their positions but it doesn't make them right. The
true drive behind the ideas and opinions is what is really important. Not
a single soul was "forced" to support are make absurd statements with
respect to the resent round of US-bashing. They did it because their
views were unsound and when confronted with the absurdity of some claims
they chose to show their true bias and compound the absurdity - they
could just as easily recognized the limitations of their "logic" rather
than allowing bias to drive their views.

> He claims to be a Devil's advocate.  I beg to differ.  It's normal to take
> that position with sincerity, openness, and respect for your opponents.

 It is? Even when the position is extremist? I don't think so. If I am to
argue the position of the Limbaughs of the world then I would believe
(perhaps incorrectly) that their approach and tone would be very appropriate.

> I've never seen evidence of any of these attributes in any of his
> "contributions".

 And what exactly is it that you do so well? You made the hypocritical claim
recently that it is my "malicious" attacks and obvious attempts to bait
which offended you so - but I have yet to see a single word from you 
with respect to an article which I would say was clearly intended to 
raise a few eyebrows (I refer to the thread regarding "bastards" and
"illegitimate children") - something tells me that if the article had
my name on it you'd be shouting from every street corner....

> I stand by my earlier conclusion - "Piss off, Gary" - we don't need this
> sort of deliberate agravation.

 Again, I am glad that you have been elected to speak for everyone in this
group - I'm sorry I didn't get to vote however....


			gln

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic