From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 23:59:52 BST
Arlo,
> Historically, it is easy to show that people are easily placated by
> immediate rewards and responsive to xenophobic manipulation.
If it's so easy to show, why don't you show it? You keep asking others for
"proof" of their statements, then fail to supply your own. Isn't that
called "hypocrisy?".
> This does not
> make them "stupid" by any means. It simply means that people must both
> learn how and decide to overcome their basic instincts. Isn't this exactly
> what organized religion, Christianity, teaches people? Does Christianity,
> too, purport that ordinary people are "too dumb" to know what is Good, that
> they must rely on the Church to tell them?
Didn't Pirsig say something to the effect that we know what's good without
having to rely on others to tell us? I don't know what "Christianity"
thinks about the wisdom of people, but I do know that democracies rely
more on the goodness of "We, the People" than those who think they know
better than the rest of us -- not to mention any names. :-).
> > > (2) America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other
> > > country, including the countries of Europe.
> >
> > > This is, again, patently false. Study after study has shown that for
> > > the *vast* majority, social mobility is a myth.
> >
> > What studies?
>
> I'm not going to do your homework, Platt. When you are interested in
> seeking truth and not patriotic propaganda, you'll easily find them. Social
> mobility studies have been conducted since the 50s.
You make a claim, then refuse to support it. A good example of the Arlo
argumentative style.
> > You and Denesh simply disagree. My experience is that in the U.S. it's
> > extremely rare for someone to consider plumbers, electricians,
> > carpenters, etc. as "underclass."
>
> If its a "simple disagreement", that alone proves Denesh is not "right" but
> merely "of the opinion". If that's the case, it hardly can be used as
> "proof" by you that the majority of Americans are better off than the
> majority of any other nation.
A good example of Arlo's argumentative style, the non sequitur. From a
difference of opinion about attitudes towards a certain class of workers
he leaps to the conclusion that an educated opinion cannot be right.
> Again, if you were interested in verifying such claims, you could easily
> find them yourself. You are, of course, not interested, or you would not
> have offered such a baseless piece of patriotic dribble as "proof" of your
> point.
Another Arlo argumentative technique -- the emotionally-driven smear.
> Here's a lesson in Platt's reasoning for all who may be reading. He uses
> D'Souza's aricle that claims, straight out, that Americans live longer
> lives. Two studies clearly show this NOT to be the case, both placing the
> U.S. way down the list (38th and 46th). Rather than realizing that this
> shows D'Souza is "wrong", he says it shows statistics are unreliable and
> that D'Souza is still "right".
D'Souza's statement was "People live longer, fuller lives in America
followed by a lengthy paragraph expanding on the point. Note is this
example of an Arlo argument that the modifier "fuller" is completely
ignored, a typical ploy. (Note he does not question the unreliability of
statistics.)
> > I fail to see any special value in "diversity."
>
> Why? D'Souza obviously does.
So?
> > Where are your statistics to show that diversity makes for a higher
> > quality society?
>
> Statistics and measures are unreliable, Platt. I say it is "true" and so it
> is. If you support D'Souza's use of this type of "logic", then why do you
> ask me for critical proof? Especially when I am agreeing with your author.
Because you're the one who seems to believe numbers are the only way to
establish the "critical proof" of anything.
> > > The remaining "assertions" I find so laughable as to be unworthy of
> > > comment. For those that may not have viewed the article:
> >
> > I find your "unworthy of comment" comment to be laughable.
>
> Can you support ANY of his remaining comments in any way, using anything
> OTHER than "this is my tenaciously held belief". If you find them worthy of
> comment, as I did not, please feel free to show me ANY support for them
> whatsoever.
Dinesh D'Sousa has the credentials of a reliable commentator of the social
scene, and what he says jibes with my direct experience.
> > Again, statistics are unreliable measures of quality. For every study
> > purporting to prove one thing you can usually find another study proving
> > the opposite.
>
> Which means there is nothing but opinion. Which means that you can make no
> claim that America is "better". You can only claim "I believe America is
> better". And if someone claims, for example, in response "I believe Denmark
> is better", all you can say is "We are of differing opinions. We cannot say
> who is right. All we can do is believe what we want to believe".
No. We can claim, based on the MOQ, that a country that is democratic and
guarantees it's citizens certain inalienable rights such as freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, trial by jury, etc. is
better than countries which do not. Further, we can claim, based on
educated opinion and our own direct experience, that some countries are
better than others.
> > About the only statistic
> > I find meaningful in terms of social quality are the numbers of men and
> > women who have fought and currently fight the enemies of freedom, most
> > especially the 3000 or so rag tag soldiers Continental Army who in 1776
> > saved the revolution from defeat by a victory at Trenton.
>
> Really? Percent living below poverty says nothing about social quality?
> Literacy rate? Homelessness? Disposable income? Free time? All mean
> nothing? Very telling.
Appealing to such statistics reveals the mindset of a central planner,
someone who believes the government is responsible for curing all social
problems. If you read the Declaration of Independence which described the
the low social quality that the Founders risked their lives to overcome,
you'll not find a single statistic to "prove" their point.
If you care you should reread Pirsig's comments about modern anthropology
to understand where I'm coming from on the question of using numbers as
objective "critical proof" when people are the subject. I'm a Dusenberry
man. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 00:13:15 BST