From the opening description of David Brin (whose books I've seen on
the shelf, but I've never read), I was anticipating a good thought
provoking article.
Instead, Mr. Brin didn't really argue anything in a substantive
manner. The little snippets that almost looked like sub-arguments
were so loaded with false dilemmas and straw men that I gave up any
idea of pointing them all out.
I can't help but wonder: This guy writes for a living? And he's a
"scientist"? Umm, okay.
The line that had me scratching my head the most was this one:
>I admit turning around and often voting for Democrats in general elections.
He claims to be mostly a Libertarian, but he actually votes for Democrats.
What a sadly conflicted individual. It's no wonder that he takes
such a "logical relativism" stance to ideologies. He has no cohesive
logic in his own political philosophy, so naturally no one else's
ideology is logical either. Bleah.
He might as well be a liberal atheist who would vote for Gary Bauer
running on some Constitution Party ticket.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT