From: dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (Gillett, David)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re:  Belated greetings, and other topics (was Re: Rhetoric:
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:57:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: yrloc.9204082057.AA08275
Reply-To: dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com (Gillett, David)
Organization: Reuters APL Software Division
X-Unparsable-Date: 8 Apr 92 20:48:24 UT


-----------Message forwarded from IPSA Mailbox-------------
no. 6134998 filed 20.40.13  wed  8 apr 1992
from dgil
to   locun
subj Re:  Belated greetings, and other topics (was Re: Rhetoric:
ref  6134302

     Let me try again.

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.
     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.  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....
     But the position which I actually took was merely to point out that 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.

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.

--
"The terrorist is the logical incarnation of     | Mentor the Sage
 patriarchal politics in a technological world." | dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com
                     -- Robin Morgan             |