X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:53:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      POLITICS FAQ, part one: purpose, rules, terms, etc.
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hail and well met, POLITICS reader.  By popular demand (at *least* two people
thought it was a good idea), this is the first list FAQ for the bitnet mail
group POLITICS, also known as bit.listserv.politics through usenet gateways.

In this, part one, I'll cover items regarding the list itself: rules for
participation, the purpose of the list, common terms, list hierarchy, and
so on.  (Part two will have the "technical information", i.e. how to order
logs, how to set yourself nomail, and so forth).

If you have any suggestions for further topics to include in the FAQ, or
find errors in the FAQ, please let me know.  Thanks to Brandon and Dunstan
for their suggestions.

The topics covered in part one are divided into four fields, as shown below:

I. WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT?
II. THE RULES OF THE LIST AND OTHER OFT-IGNORED THINGS
III. KEY TERMS, LIST HIERARCHY, AND THE LIKE
IV. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS

So, acquire the beverage of your choice, kick back, and read...
List Politics Frequently Asked Questions

I. WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT?

Well, the concept is fairly easy.  It's about any and all aspects of politics,
from discussing the ramifications of lifting the ban on non-heterosexuals in
the U.S. military to whether libertarian capitalism really works.  From the
interpretation of the Constitution to news on the latest political maneuverings
in the former Soviet Union.  From the question of whether character matters in
politics to our favorite political characters.  And so on and so on.

The form it takes is one enormous, freeflowing discussion, where a careless
side remark might spark a major thread, and the only predictible aspect is that
someone, somehow, will feel absolutely compelled to rerun the abortion debate
for the 2^bth time, every four months or so.

The volume of the list ebbs and flows.  Sometimes it sees streaks of thought-
provoking, well-conceived debate.  At other times it's a strident flamefest.
Most of the time, it's somewhere in between.  All net-cop efforts are
ultimately in vain.

One more thing, before we go to the meat of this faq: this list should not be
confused with the talk.politics.* flamefests.  While argumentation is the whole
point of this list, most of us feel some sort of respect for the views of our
opponents, and some level of basic civility is encouraged.  (Although the
performance of a few politics members in these past six months fails in even
these minimum respects).  Thank you, and drive safely.

II. THE RULES OF THE LIST AND OTHER OFT-IGNORED THINGS

[The following is available from listserv@ucf1vm as file POLITICS LRULES.
See part two, section VI for instructions as to how to acquire it or other
similarly wonderous items.  Of all the sections of this FAQ, this is by far
the most important, so please read it.]

Since politics is a very volatile topic,  where feelings are easily hurt
and people angered,  there are some rules  for anyone who wishes to join
this  list.    If you  feel  you  cannot  abide  by them,   then  please
UNSUBscribe from the list.   Otherwise,  you  will be expected to follow
these rules.  Failure to comply will result in expulsion from the list.

There may be no flames of a personal nature on this list.   According to
Quarterman and  Hoskins,  flaming  means "to  produce words  ...  in  an
abusive or ridiculous manner;  'raving' is almost a synonym for flaming"
(967).    For example,   comments like  "you're a  bluthering idiot  who
wouldn't know  a good theory  if you tripped over  it" do not  belong on
POLITICS.   Neither do taunts such as  "sure,  I'll bet even your mother
hates you" or "all of your friends are just commie pigs anyway".  Please
present your beliefs calmly with a semblance of politeness.

Topics should be political in nature.  Espousing your religious views is
not  political.   Arguing  that  prayer should  be  legalized in  public
schools is.  Insisting that another's sexual orientation is evil or ugly
is not political.  Arguing for the rights of homosexuals is.  Please use
some judgment in your topic selection.

In short, please keep your entries free of all racial,  ethnic,  sexual,
and religious slurs.

Thank you,

LISTSERV Management
University of Central Florida

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

( From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
  Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 11:30:22 PST
  Subject: abuses of rhetoric....  )

[Gary's note: this is a list of things to try to avoid while constructing
arguments, and not, I repeat, NOT a checklist of strategies to try.]

Some things to watch for in arguments for or about something.....

Deductive Fallacies:
--------------------
Equivocation:   Changing the meaning or connotation of a word.

Ambiguity:      Leaving the meaning of a word or a phrase unclear
                when it can be interpreted in at least two ways.

Vagueness:      Leaving the meaning of a word or phrase unclear when
                it can cover a multitude of possibilities (e.g.
                democracy, efficiency, progress...)

Begging the
Question:       Presenting an argument in which one of the statements
                offered as evidence assumes the conclusion to be
                proved (also called circular reasoning/argument).

Contradiction:  Asserting two statements at the same time that cannot
                both be true at the same time and in the same way.

converse vs     A => B, therefore  B =>  A.     Incorrect.
inverse vs      A => B, therefore ~A => ~B.     Incorrect.
contrapositive: A => B, therefore ~B => ~A.     Correct

                A=>B:   If I fall in the pool, then I'll be wet.

                B=>A:   If I'm wet, then I fell in the pool.
                        (I could have gotten wet some other way).

                ~A=>~B: If I don't fall in the pool, then I won't be
                        wet.
                        (I could get wet some other way).

                ~B=>~A: If I'm not wet, then I didn't fall in the
                        pool.


Fallacies of Inductive Reasoning:
--------------------------------
Oversimplification:
                Attempting to support a conclusion with evidence that
                is too limited or one-sided, especially if the
                presentation of evidence is highly selective, ignoring
                contrary data (also called stacking the deck or
                "glittering generalities")

False Cause:    Drawing hasty conclusions about antecedent events or
                correlations. Also called "post hoc" arguments.

False Analogy:  Suggesting that because two different situations or
                things resemble each other in some respects, they do
                so in most if not all other aspects as well. Also
                called "Straw Man" argument.

Guilt by
Association:    Suggesting that because someone or something is known
                to associate with something bad or incorrect, they or
                it is also bad or incorrect. (e.g. "Fred had his
                picture taken with Ronald Reagan once, therefore he
                supports RR's positions vis-a-vie Central America.")


Fallacies of Emotional Appeals:
-------------------------------
Appealing to
pity:           Replacing facts or evidence with appeal for sympathy.

Appealing to
the people:     Invoking traditional values, attitudes, prejudices, or
                provincial interests. (e.g. "As our forefathers
                said....")

Jumping on the
bandwagon:      Appealing to the usually human desire to be like or do
                what others are like or do. (e.g. "You have to act
                now, because every city in the state except ours
                has...")

Appealing to
Laughter:       Replacing evidence or data with satire, parody, jokes
                or other diversions. (e.g. "Go ahead, don't increase
                the budget.  Make my day...")

Arguing aginst
the person:     Replacing evidence or data with attacks aginst your
                opponents.  This is also called Ad hominem argument.
                (e.g. "The councilman doesn't want to increase the
                budget in our part of the city because he is from a
                predominantly white district and is therefore against
                equal opportunity")

III. KEY TERMS, LIST HIERARCHY, AND THE LIKE

[the following terms are available as file POLITICS DEFNS from listserv@
ucf1vm, and cover definitions of various ideologies in a nonpartisan manner.
They're not etched in stone, of course, just there to assist debate.  More
useful terms and so on follow this file.]

From:         "John M. Kelsey" <C445585@UMCVMB>
Subject:  Some definitions....

   Sometimes, I think political arguments are about half arguments on
meanings of the terms.  I'd like to try and define a few terms, so that
we can have some common ground.  Feel free to grumble at me about any
definitions you're not happy with.

capitalism:  Economic/social system in which most property is owned by
             individuals and/or groups of individuals, and is managed
             primarily for private gain.

socialism:   Economic system in which most property is owned/controlled by
             the government, and is managed for government goals.

facism:      Political system in which individual rights are systematically
             denied in favor of the powers of the government.  Property
             under facism is officially "owned" by individuals, but it can
             be taken at any time, and will be, in order to meet State goals.

democracy:   Political system in which the popular vote determines gov't
             action.

democratic
republic:    Political system in which the rulers are popularly elected.

constitutional
democracy:   Political system in which the popular vote determines gov't
             policy, limited by a document (constitution) which restricts
             gov't interference in certain areas.

anarchy:     A social system in which there exists no government, ie, no
             central authority in matters of law enforcement, defence, or
             anything else.

reactionary: One who opposes change in general, and wishes to maintain
             society at its present point, or else to move it toward where
             it was in the past.

libertarian: One who wishes to maximize individual freedom, even at the cost
             of some other social goals.

marxist:     One who opposes private property, and believes that the workers
             in a capitalist society are exploited by the capitalists, and
             that they should, and will, eventually band together, take
             control, and run the society for their common benefit.

Keynesian
economics:   Economic doctrine stating that imbalances (recessions) occur
             regularly in a capitalist economy, and that the government can
             and should counteract these by use of fiscal (spending and taxing)
             and monetary (money-supply) measures.

Monetarist
economics:   Economic doctrine opposing Keynesianism on the basis that govern-
             ment actions to stabilize the economy often do just the opposite,
             and that political control of monetary and fiscal policy can be
             used to manipulate the economy for political purposes.

Supply-Side
economics:   Economic doctrine stating that the gov't can positively affect
             long-term economic growth, and thus long-term economic stability.
             Largely, they advocate lower tax rates and deregulation as ways
             to encourage reinvestment, and to increase business' efficiency.

Populism:    A set of political beliefs including isolationism, a dislike of
             big business, and usually some distrust of technology and big
             government.

isolationism:A dislike of meddling in foreign affairs, particularly militarily.

------------------------

[and now, more useful terms, by me:]

ad hominem argument: argument against the person
ad homonym argument: sounds like an argument against the person, but isn't
ad houyhnhnm argument: argument against a superintelligent horse (rare)
qui tacit conset: if you don't respond, i'll assume you agree with me
non sequitur: it does not follow - an error in logic
crappy argument: ad poo-poo
hypocrisy: the feigning of beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not
           hold or possess; insincerity
hippocracy: political system in which horses rule; the equestrian society

The list hierarchy:
[This grew out of an in-joke into virtual elections in the fall of 1992 which
resulted in the following virtual positions being filled.  The president and
vice president are elected positions, and the czars are appointed.  Just
remember, this section is all in good fun, and it's not like they have any
actual power, anyway.  If you have serious problems, consult the listowner
(see section III).]

Virtual President: Tim Johnson
Virtual Vice President: Gary W. Olson
Secretary of State: Valentine M. Smith
Logic Czar: Jamie Dreier
History Czar: Michael McCarthy
Science Czar: Kerry Kilburn
Associate History Czars: Valentine M. Smith, T. Clark, Brett'
List Mother: Linda Saboe
Deposed List Dictator: Ramon

IV. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS

Q: Why do posts contain so much quoted text ?
A: Some people just haven't been clued in about the delete key.

Q: Why do so many posts bear no relation to the subject line ?
A: See section I.  Topics can mutate rapidly, while the subject line remains
   unchanged.

Q: I'm new to the list. Should I just listen for a while, or shall I
   go straight in and make a fool of myself ?
A: Oh, by all means, go straight in.  We could use a few good laughs.

Q: Can you give a proper example of the usage of the word 'scads'?
A: 'Bill Clinton has scads of cellulite molecules about his waist'.

Q: What is ^, anyway?
A: ^ is an electronic substance known to produce euphoria, consternation,
   hallucinations, and other altered states of being.  It has definite
   advantages over non-electronic substances, in that it is non-addictive,
   non-material, and easy to produce (just hold down the shift key and press
   "6", on most keyboards).

Q: Does it matter, cosmically speaking, if I say 'a historian' or 'an
   historian'?
A: Of course it does.  You don't think we'd debate anything if it were minor
   and totally pointless, do you?  Ha!

Q: Why does this list focus so much on the U.S. political scene?
A: It's more hip.

Q: Well, I live in Europe, so nyah.
A: (sigh)

(FAQ CONTINUES IN PART TWO...)

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU