From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 09 2005 - 15:54:03 BST
Hi Arlo,
> [Arlo had written]
> > > In the end, they must decide for themselves. But that is no reason not
> > > to illuminate the dialogue.
>
> [Platt responded]
> > No objections. I would only add that we must defend freedom to decide
> > and act on our values for ourselves.
Arlo:
> Agreed. And I would only add that we must remain vigilant against those
> that would seek to use rewards and fear to make us act in a way we might
> normally not do (e.g., advertising and speech-making as tools to
> manipulate).
Can we agree that there's a difference between the methods used by
politicians and corporations vs. those used by government? Do you see a
difference between the power to persuade and the power to jail? When it
comes to vigilance concerning power structures, can we agree that
government is the largest and potentially the most dangerous power
structure of all?
> [Platt had written]
> > In citing educated opinion one looks for credentials such as degrees
> > earned, books written, length of experience in a particular field, awards
> received, etc. I'm not a lawyer but I gather there are number of criteria
> along those lines for establishing someone as an expert witness.
>
> But just like with statistics, you can easily find two people with
> equivalent levels of "education" that disagree significantly. I'm not sure
> that shows that "educated opinion" is more reliable than statistics per se.
No, I don't believe I claimed educated opinion was more reliable than
statistics per se. But I do say educated opinion is worthwhile support for
a point of view, especially when it comes to social matters. The fact that
there is disagreement among experts about such social matters goes to show
that "objective facts" and "proofs" are hard to rely on in that arena. Do
you recall the arguments the group had about the data compiled by Charles
Murray?
> The point is that, of course, there are both "qualitative" and
> "quantitative" research questions. When I ask, "do Americans live longer
> than people in any other country?", that IS a question I can answer with
> statistical measures. I can also answer whether people at various
> socio-economic levels have an average different lifespan.
I'm sure your familiar with the aphorism, "Lies, damned lies and
statistics." Statistics are no better than the people who compile them.
Hopefully, those who do compile them have some credentials for doing so
and a track record of getting them right. But, the fact that two different
organizations give two different rankings on national longevity makes me
suspect they lack "objective truth." Same goes for statistics on deaths
caused by smoking. Having worked for many years for a life insurance
company who published a monthly report on policyholder deaths and the
causes thereof, I don't recall one every attributed to smoking.
> Other questions, like the "fullness" of the lives they lead CAN be
> quantitative, if definitions are offered, such as "I define fullness by
> whether or not the majority of peoples over 75 are living in nursing
> homes." You may, as a reader, agree or disagree with such a definition, but
> I, as a researcher, can quantify it. However, the value of qualitative
> research is profound. Case studies, ethnographic research, "educated
> opinion" I do certainly find worthwhile (and indismissable simply for being
> "qualitative"... I even like the word ;-))
Me, too :-).
> However, even in taking a "qualitative" approach to a question, a person
> has to offer more than simply "I am saying this is so". This is only what
> D'Souza does. He is not saying, for example, that his experience shows that
> a mid-high socio-economic America has a better chance to pursue whatever
> may interest them in college, than an similar person in India. He is making
> sweeping and incredibly broad claims "Americans lead fuller lives", and
> offering no criteria, multiple case-studies, supporting studies (either QN
> or QT), etc.
I presume he, being an academic, makes the observations from evidence
offered in one or more of his books. The article in question is, after
all, a brief summary of his years of study, not an academic treatise.
> For example, his comment "America has the gentlest army in the world" (or
> something like that) needs some definition. And it needs to respond to the
> historical facts that our army has been involved in situations that many
> people feel were "misguided". Not to mention the obvious comparison with an
> army such as the Belgian. Statements need some clarification and support,
> they can't JUST be unsubstantiated opinion. Well, they CAN be, but then
> that's all they should claim to be.
As for support, see above. Does Belgium have an army?
> I'd agree. But no comparison can be made between Denmark and the US,
> getting back the original proposition that "less CEP means the majority of
> citizens lead better lives"?
Do you now, percentage wise, the degree of CEP in Denmark vs. the U.S.?
> [Arlo had written]
> > > No, Platt. It reveals compassion. Caring about something more than my
> > > personal little wealth stockpile.
>
> [Platt responded]
> > Yes, I know. You want to be admired for your compassion and caring. Maybe
> > we
> should initiate a study of who is more compassionate, you or me. :-)
>
> You make such a materialist assumption, and this shows the blindness people
> have when internalizing an ideology (see my post to Ham). You make the
> assumption that "materialism" (working only to reward myself) is the
> natural state of all people. If I think of others, it is only because I
> "want to be admired"? This, I think, speaks volumes about "you", Platt.
Boy, you're reading an awful lot into my statement about you wanting to be
admired for your compassion. Where have I ever said that materialism is
the "natural state of all people." My view has always been, "Let (and
trust) people to decide for themselves." I want to be admired for my
devotion to freedom.
> As
> I said to Ham, are the Amish "wanting to be admired" when they work
> communally to pay for, and build, barns (etc) for others in their
> community? Was Jesus looking to be admired when he performed all those
> charitable and compassionate acts?
Do not the Amish wish to be admired by God? And surely you're not
comparing yourself to Jesus.
> Nonetheless, I do think there are greater things in life than "me amassing
> money". Call that whatever you like.
Me too. Liberty -- worth dying for don't you think?
> [Arlo asked]
> > > But let me ask you, are the "poor" responsible for their poverty?
>
> [Platt responded]
> > In many cases in the U.S., yes.
>
> How often? The majority of poor? Half? About what percent would you say are
> responsible for their poverty?
I haven't the slightest idea. What percent would you say are NOT
responsible for their poverty? Can you prove it?
> Also, in what ways are they responsible?
By dropping out of school, by not showing up for work on time every day,
by having bastard children, by taking drugs, etc., etc.
> [Arlo had written]
> > > 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.
>
> [Platt responded]
> > Well, feel free to bash the Founders if you wish. They (and the
> > Continental Army and the millions who have died to defend this country
> > since) assured you of that right
>
> Reread my paragraph and tell me how I "bashed" the founders? I "bashed"
> Limbaughians, to be sure. But where and how did I bash the founders?
By closely associating Limbaugh (whom you bash) with the Founders.
> [Platt wrote]
> > Let's discuss reliable sources. Perhaps we can start by agreeing that
> > Wikipedia should be our basic reference encyclopedia and that Merriam-
> > Webster our dictionary since both are readily accessed on the Web.
>
> We can agree to use them, but I wouldn't rely on them exclusively.
What sources would you suggest we might agree on? Seems we could save an
awful lot of time and frustration if we could agree on reliable sources.
If I cite Limbaugh as a source you would object. LIkewise, if you cite
Chomsky. Also, we should try to agree on what constitutes "truth" and
"proof."
> Interesting, you know, wikipedia is a massive collectivist project,
> undertaking by people for no profit (almost exclusively anonymously, I
> might add), all to make something "better". :-)
Sometimes it works, like the MD, hopefully. But, how often? Perhaps you
can cite some studies that "prove" what percent of enterprise ought to be
collectivist and nonprofit.:-)
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 : Sat Jul 09 2005 - 16:09:02 BST