Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 13:21:11 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: partisan idiocy

  This discussion is clearly getting out of hand.  -T.
(begins with the same letter as Tim, but please
don't confuse us) made a ridiculous assertion about the
nature of conservative and liberal debate; that when liberals
argue, they engage in rhetoric, but when conservatives argue,
they indulge in rationalization and self-deception.  Frankly,
I can't imagine that he would possibly wish to defend this
assertion (I mistook it for good clean "liberal rhetoric.")
but he has apparently chosen to make a stand on this point.

  Actually, I'm not sure I really have to go much further
than -T.'s own approach to the debate in the few posts I
have followed.  He characterizes the opposition to gun control
as "babbling" (double quotes!) about individual liberties
and purposeful misinterpretation of the constitution.  I
hope that my earlier post (courtesy of Mr. Schulman, Professor
Copperud, and Mr. Plowinske) will help demonstrate that it is
hardly the case that the opposition to gun control is purpose-
fully misinterpreting the second amendment.  In fact, it would
seem to suggest that "purposeful misinterpretation" should be
reclassified as "rhetoric" and not "rationalization."  As for
individual rights, I find it frankly disheartening to find that
-T. considers talk about individual rights as so much babbling.
At one time, such things as our individual rights as protected
by the Bill of Rights were considered important.

  In addition, -T. has the temerity to accuse me of posting
"incredibly moronic and ignorant garbage" and of indulging in
inappropriate language in my debate with him on this issue.
I'm not certain exactly what he is talking about.  My first
post - that rationalization was not exclusively the domain
of the conservatives - I imagined to be a truism, and others
on the list have expressed the same opinion.  Hardly ignorant
garbage, and, for the life of me, I couldn't find inappropriate
language in the body of the text.  I did, in a second message,
make reference to his "childish flames" (double quotes again)
directed at Sprg000, and while this is certainly a value
judgement, it is far from inappropriate language.  Oh, and I
did post that textual analysis of the 2nd amendment - which
may be many things, but isn't ignorant garbage.  (Unless, of
course, -T. meant "incredibly moronic and ignorant garbage"
and "inappropriate language" in the liberal rhetorical sense,
and not the self-deluding rationalization sense.)

  I notice a trend here.  In defending gun control (at least,
those posts of his that I have read) -T. argues that the
opposition is (no quotes, but all are his words) ignorant,
moronic, babbling, greedy, nonsensical *and* that they have
nefarious (okay, that one is my word and not his) ulterior
motives.  That is, he argues for gun control by attacking
those who oppose it rather than their arguments against it.
There is a latin term for that type of argument, and while
*I* wouldn't classify it as characteristically liberal, I'm
not sure the ad hominem fallacy is a particularly strong
foundation for an argument.  (Even as liberal rhetoric
rather than conservative rationalization.)

                            -Da Prez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU