From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Subject: Re:  Belated greetings, and other topics (was Re: Rhetoric:
Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:07:36 GMT

In article <9204082057.AA08275@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>, dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (Gillett, David) writes:
>A.  Straw man, or reductio ad absurdum?
>     1.  Deepvoice made an assertion about something he thinks might be wrong
>         with our society.
>     2.  I suggest that Deepvoice's suggestion *might* form the basis of some
>         sort of ideal society, but that it has hardly ever been attempted in
>         Real Life (tm).  I specifically meant to strongly imply that it is
>         NOT a defect of current American society, for the simple reason that
>         current American society is not an example of that principle.
>     3.  Seawasp, completely ignoring the question of whether or not current
>         society embodies the principle under discussion, threw in 'Nazi
>         Germany' as an example of a culture (and I don't think it IS one!)
>         that would conflict with that social principle.
>     4.  I stated that I did not feel that I had taken the position that
>         Seawasp was attacking.  Specifically, I (mis?)read his post as
>         suggesting that Nazism (a) is a culture, and (b) is entitled to
>         equal protection as such.  Since I disagree with (a) and had never
>         advocated (b), I took this to be an attempt to discredit the principle
>         by portraying it as supportive of Nazis -- which would indeed be a
>         straw man tactic.
AHA!  So, before this "ideal society" even gets off paper, you're eliminating
proposed "cultures" based on your own prejudices!  What happens it we ever try
to IMPLEMENT it?  To expand a bit, someone has defined what they think of as a
particular (not very desirable) culture (and I agree with them, more or less: 
There WAS a culture in NAZI Germany;  NAZIism mignt not be the correct name for
the culture, but NAZIism was definitely a PART of that culture).  And even
before things have progressed past a purely theoretical stage, you propose
barring this culture from your "ideal society" by defining it as "not a
culture."  What do we get next?  "War is Peace"?  "Knowledge is Ignorance"?
"Freedom is Slavery"?  (Apologies to George Orwell for possibly misquoting his
slogans).  No, the very means by which you choose to defend your "ideal
society" shows that even YOU admit it's unworkable.

>     5.  Seawasp claims that he was attempting a reductio ad absurdum, showing
>         that the full application of the principle leads to unacceptible
>         consequences, and he introduces other examples of cultures that would
>         have difficulty in such a hypothetical society.
>
>     I believe that the principle could be elaborated in such a way that the
>specific objections which Seawasp raises would be dealt with -- but that that
>would be a digression.

No, it would NOT be a digression.  As you've stated things so far, even YOU
admit that they don't work, or at least that your statement of the idea is so
vague that one interpretation of it doesn't work.  I've got news for you: 
Utopias are a dime a dozen;  WORKABLE Utopias are exceedingly rare (to the
point of non-existence thus far).  If you can't state the rules upon which your
Utopia is to be based in terms unambiguous enough that they can stand up to
skepticism, then you can join all the other designers of Utopias who, upon
trying the experiment, had to fall back to the (pathetic) excuse:  `It wasn't
really given a chance.'"

>For instance, in such a hypothetical culture, marching
>around in uniforms with banners would get pretty stale if it didn't include
>the right to abuse Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals....

"No, this one CULTURE would've had problems had it not had that right.  You've
stated that all cultures should be allowed.  SEAWasp showed the fundamental
contradiction in your proposed system.  Admit it:  What you're proposing can't,
by its very definition, work.  Restating your definitions so as to eliminate
this fundamental contradiction is NOT a digression.  So far, what you've said
is, in essence, equivalent to the statement:  `If I had some ham, I could cook
some ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.'  You've assumed something DEMONSTRABLY
COUNTERFACTUAL, then said `If the facts were otherwise, it would work.'  BFD. 
In the REAL WORLD, you can't assume away inconvenient contradictions.  Lenin
and Stalin tried to do exactly that.  Look where that led.  People like you are
DANGEROUS."

>     But the position which I actually took was merely to point out tt this
>society DOES NOT value all cultures equally, and therefore the problems of
>this society cannot be ascibed to that condition.  When I start to argue that
>we could and should 'value all cultures equally', I will have to deal with
>objections like that raised by Seawasp, but that day has not yet arrived.

"I see.  What you're now arguing is: `The status quo has problems;  therefore,
ANYTHING which eliminates the current problems is an improvement.'  Let me give
you a reductio ad absurdum based on this line of argument:  I smoke. 
Therefore, I'm likely to develop lung cancer.  Therefore, ANYTHING I do to
prevent lung cancer will be an improvement.  If I shoot myself in the head,
I'll die before I get lung cancer.  Therefore, it's better if I shoot myself in
the head right now.'  Do you NOW see just how STUPID this line of reasoning is? 
You can't just say: `I don't like things as they are, so we have to change
them.'  You have to propose a way to change them FOR THE BETTER.

>B.  Randian Hero or Bum?
>
>     Rand herself claims that, if a Randian Hero and a Bum each inherit a
>fortune, the Hero will by his very nature retain and expand it and the Bum will
>quickly lose it.  I do not see any injustice in treating them alike, for
>according to her their positions will not *remain* alike for long!
>     Now, Seawasp claims he *does* see a problem in treating them alike.  I
>think that either he must be arguing from a faulty understanding of Randian
>theory -- in which case, his objection is without merit -- or Randian theory
>is itself faulty upon this point -- in which case, his objection is without
>merit.                                   

Not at all.  How much harm might the bum do in the process of dissipating his
fortune?  If we're lucky, none.  If we're not so lucky, that bum might turn out
to be Yuri Geller.  Or maybe he'll turn out to be the next Adolph Hitler.