From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 01:46:14 BST
Platt,
> 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. :-).
Fair point. But I'm not talking about telling others "what's best for them". I'm
saying that people are easily manipulated through rewards and fear to act in
ways they might normally NOT act. Why do you think advertising and
speech-making are such powerful tools?
The underlying point is that people think "through language" not simply "with
language". It is, generally speaking, not until someone experience
cross-cultural tensions does one realize that one's culture predisposes them to
think in a certain way, about certain things.
We have a very consumerist, materialist culture. Advertising and the dwindling
savings of most Americans bears out the truth that we are spending more and
saving less. I certainly wouldn't begin to tell someone what they can and can't
spend, but I can certainly work towards showing them potential outcomes of
their decisions, and ask them to consider whether they are spending (or not) to
create a placeholder for true socio-political leverage.
In the end, they must decide for themselves. But that is no reason not to
illuminate the dialogue.
> >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.
What humor? Your chosen "proof" offered no supporting studies, and yet you
believe him. Which only proves my point that you are not seeking truth, but
merely reifying patriotic allegiencies.
You ask for support from your opposition, but offer none in your favor. Doesn't
that smack of hypocrisy to you? The sad part is, I could easily find you
several sociological studies demonstrating my point, and I know you are smart
enough to find them easily yourself. But you'd rather play the role of the
propagandist.
So I renew my challenge. If you can produce ONE study that shows significant
class progression in America then I will cede your point. This was the claim,
mind you, made in YOUR proof.
If you say that there is no study that can prove, or disprove, this statement,
all you are doing is saying "its his (and yours) patriotically clung to
opinion". Which is fine, if you'd be honest about it.
> > > You and Denesh simply disagree.
> >
> > 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.
Perhaps you should look up "non sequitur" in a dictionary, Platt.
Or, perhaps, you can inform me how his "opinion" is "educated" and mine is
"not"?
If BOTH are opinions are equally valid, it disproves your argument that there
exists proof that America is "better". If his is "more educated", please
explain to me how? It certainly isn't that he offers one iota of proof outside
of opinion.
> 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.)
D'Souza offers no more support of this second point than of the first. But if
you'd reread my post, I do mention this. I also criticize it for being nothing
more than opinion. It was you who responded to this by showing me how America
ranks 38th in lifespan, not 46th. So his first point (living longer) is
disproven. Do you have any proof other than "opinion" that his second is true?
> > > I fail to see any special value in "diversity."
> >
> > Why? D'Souza obviously does.
>
> So?
Just pointing out where I agree with Denesh, that's all.
> > 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.
What constitues "credentials"? Being "conservative"? Seems like that's the only
credential you look for.
At any rate, I appreciate you admitting to blindly agreeing with D'Souza because
he says what you already tenaciously (in Peircian terms) believe.
> > 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.
So, since Denmark has these things, you'd say there is no measure to compare the
two? And again, what makes one opinion "educated" and another "not"? Whether or
not it trumpets "conservativism"?
> > 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.
No, Platt. It reveals compassion. Caring about something more than my personal
little wealth stockpile.
But let me ask you, are the "poor" responsible for their poverty?
> 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.
Ah, yes. The last appeal of the Limbaughians is to "the Founders". I can almost
hear the Stars and Stripes playing in the background. The founders, however, we
very specific in drafting documents that clearly indicate what "low Quality"
they were combatting. Taxation without representation, for example. Indeed, in
their opening they state "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". When
they say "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed" they are very openly stating that they were
rejecting as low Quality the idea of monarchy and non-representative
government. The DoI continues with a long list of direct and open complaints as
to specific actions which can be historically documented and examined.
You and D'Souza offer no such argument. You have not shown any indicator other
than "opinion" as to your belief that the majority of Americans and "better
off" (due to less CEP, I might add, for those coming to the party late) than
the majority of Danes (for example).
> 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. :-)
Really? Dusenberry rejected contemporary wealth and chose to live among a
minority peoples so as to better understand them and their culture. And you
feel you're like Dusenberry?
No one, lest of all me, places absolute credence in statistics. However, when
you present something as "truth" as you tried to pass D'Souza off as, requires
some appeal to something other than opinion. If I said that I believed the
majority of Canadians to be better off than we are, wouldn't the first thing
out of your keyboard be "on what do base that?" If I said "opinion". You'd
likely say "fine", but you'd laugh at my attempts to pass it off as undeniable
fact.
Not to mention that fact that we can use measures to determine the validity of
some statements, such as "Americans live longer lives" or "people are socially
mobile in America". Undeniably false. And yet you cling to them, because it
reifies patriotic feel-goodism.
Arlo
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 - 01:50:06 BST