From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Yet another _Ad Hominem_ post (was: Biological Sex Differences?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:45:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <e3DFPB2w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>> In article <cmgyoB4w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
>> 
>> >        His closing sentence in the above is also revealing; if we reject 
>> >what he sees as feminism, we cannot regard the current status of women as 
>> >wrong, he maintains. Evidently, such ephemeral, 'politically correct' 
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >concepts as equality, justice, and egalitarianism have no place in Robert's 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >ideal society; they contradict what he sees as the 'harsh dictates of 
>> >nature.' And if women don't like it, apparently, they have no right even to 
>> >complain.
>> 
>> Once again, we see the false dichotomy: "If he won't accept the radical's
>> demands for special treatment and greater power, then he must be a fascist
>> who thinks women should be treated like dogs!"
>> 
>        Robert, once again you seem to demonstrate your inability to parse 
>the English language. No dichotomy was ever invoked; the above excerpt 
>clearly illustrates that your comments about women's status-- that if the 
>societal differences between men and women are biologically innate, we cannot 
>call any disparities between their power and status as 'wrong'-- are, simply, 
>a way of disregarding any concepts of justice or equality. There was no 
>'dichotomy' set up at all. You yourself said that disparities between the 
>power and opportunites between men and women are innate, and can't be called 
>'wrong.'
>
>        But this is typical of Robert; he either intentionally misses the 
>point, when sticking to relevant issues would mean ruin for his provincial 
>world-view, or is simply unable to understand what people say to him.
>

For the benefit of the mentally-challenged, I have underlined the false
dichotomy Brian set up in the above passage, the one he claims doesn't
exist. Brian would have us think that if one critiques contemporary
feminism, then one is *obviously* opposed to "equality" and "justice".
(I confess to being opposed to "egalitarianism," which I interpret as
meaning an ideologically-based "coercive levelling". Procrustes was an
"egalitarian.")

Notice how Brian the Charitable uses the above to "prove" that I am guilty
of either willful misrepresentation, provincialism, or gross stupidity.
As I said before, SOME people can stick to the facts when arguing
highly-controversial issues, but Brian Siano is NOT one of them. When
his blood pressure rises, he starts slinging layer after layer of mud
at the PERSONAL CHARACTER of his opponent. 

If he had the facts on his side, he wouldn't need to stoop so low. So
instead, he tries to persuade you that only a dirty little @#$% would
argue thusly, hoping to divert attention away from a reasoned examination
of the issue.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Xref: sparky soc.women:15160 talk.rape:2098