From: brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin: how did it develope?
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:54:14 GMT


   In article <1992Aug25.104547.10666@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk 
(Lionel Tun) provides a profound and complete demonstration on the use of
the double standard...

   I am merely going to rewrite what Lionel says with the opposite spin.
This I am doing to demonstrate the speciousness of his argument, at a level
that (with greatest hope in my heart) will demonstrate to Lionel why he is
being offensive.

>In article <1992Aug24.104129.1@si194b.llnl.gov> brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
>writes:

>>   "Lionel. pointing to examples of misuse of an idea, any idea, to
>>    argue against the correctness of the idea is crap."

>I was not arguing against the correctness of the idea (this time) I
>was pointing out some of the consequences of following the idea to
>its unfortunate conclusion. [evolution leads to apartheid--mjb]

   [I have previously given reasons why one could argue, using Lionel's
    standards, that Christianity lead to apartheid.  I will stick with
    this example below.]

   I was not arguing against the correctness of the religion (this time) I
was pointing out some of the consequences of following Christianity to its
unfortunate conclusion.

>Now granted that not all evolutionists
>do this, and I apologise to evolutionists who believe they have a
>well developed sense of morals.

   Now granted that not all Christians do this, and I apologize to Christians
who believe they have a well developed sense of morals.

>However there are people, probably
>quite unscientific, who take evolutionary ideas and use them to
>justify their goal of world domination and genocide.

   However there are people, probably quite unChristianlike, who take Christian
ideas and use them to justify their goal of world domination and genocide.

>>   "You [sic] be hard pressed to argue that Christianity was/is not behind
>>    these examples, in much the same way you want to claim evolution is behind
>>    apartheid."

>Good point. Christianity has been abused to perpetrate many evils.
>But the proper application of it has done much good. 

   Good point.  Evolution has been abused to perpetrate many evils.  But the
proper application of it has done much good.

>>   For the Creationists out there, who still think slinging this particular
>>form of mud, when applied to evolution, is a valid argument, the above 
>>challenge still stands.

>I was not using these examples as a valid argument against evolution,
>the scientific theory, I wished to alert people to the possible
>evils that may come out of the philosophy.

   I was not using theses examples as a valid argument against Christianity,
the religion, I wished to alert people to the possible evils that may come out
of the philosophy.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

   Now, Lionel, reread what I have written above.  Do you see that there are
three major difficulties with proceeding with this form of argument:

1) The argument is invalid to discussing truth/falsity of the idea under
   attack.  It is nothing more than mudslinging, namecalling, choose your
   word, under the guise of rational discourse.

2) The argument is useless to advance any particular view, because one can
   always attack the opposing idea in exactly the same way.  (This is especially
   true when the ideas are evolution and Christianity.  In fact, in this case
   Christianity can never win, because it has a longer history, and hence,
   a longer history of abuse than is the case for evolution.)  Remember, what's
   sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

3) This rhetorical form is particularly scurrilous, because it is most
   effective emotionally when you link the idea to its darkest misuses. For
   example, what I have written above is an unjustified and reprehensible
   attack on Christianity.  The same can be said for the argument you are
   trying to advance wrt evolution.  The only real difference is that I am
   feigning offensiveness to demonstrate a point; you are well and truly being
   offensive.

   The choice lies with you, Lionel.  You can retract your argument or you can
continue to advance it and its reprobate cousins.  In choosing the first
option, you will side with people who feel that this rhetorical mode is
unworthy of a rational human being.  Keep advancing these types of arguments
and you will only succeed at lowering whatever minimal level of discourse
there is in t.o., demonstrating the intellectual vacuity of your position, and
siding with the basest portions of human nature.

   Actually, the choice lies not only with Lionel, but with everyone who
posts.  It all comes down to what each individual views as acceptable
public conduct.  To quote Archibald MacLeish, "You pick the even, choose the
odd."  Just make sure that you understand the consequences of what you are
choosing.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins