From: Nathanael Allison (jubungalord@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 03:23:33 MST
I understand what you are saying. My point is simply this: why are we doing
these messages on this email list. You may be able to sway peoples opinions,
big deal. Shouldn't we be much more worried about the truth? I get tired of
reading through emails that I can gain no information from. Isn't there some
type of qualification for an argument being moot when there is nothing it is
trying to prove? So we might as well cancel the argument out. Too bad it
couldn't cancel itself out like anti-matter matter does.
Brett thanks for the reply, Nate
>Nathanael wrote:
>
>
> > It is to the best of my knowlege that the decisions of the UN
> > and of each nation are still left up to a few people.
>
>Mine too. At least a relative few.
>
><snip>
>
> > It is much more likely that the US choosing war or France
> > choosing anti-war derives from irrational ideas of a few people.
>
>I don't think its so much the number of people deciding an issue
>that determines whether or not any decision is rational what seems
>to be more important is the process by which they decide. Because
>the UN is a "club" of Member nations who gets to sit in the General
>Assembly and on the Security Council on behalf of their particular
>country will in very large part be effected by the processes of
>by which governments are formed (which in turn appoint their
>representatives) in any particular country. What I think we can be
>fairly confident of however is that those who are representing any
>country at the UN will be pretty capable in comparison to the run
>of the mill member of their society when it comes to being able to
>make and rebut arguments. Intelligence matters in all countries and
>all countries have enough members to choose from to ensure that
>more rather than less intelligent representatives will represent the
>governments of those countries at the UN.
>
> > Then the media takes hold of the positions and propaganda
> > flourishes. Before you know it you have two people arguing
> > over wether France sold Iraq illegal weapons. To argue about
> > something when neither party in the argument can give accurate
> > information is futile.
>
>Its only futile if you assume the point of all arguments is to
>communicate or to find the truth. In political forums this is almost
>never the case. In political forums the point of argument is seldom
>to persuade the person one is ostensibly arguing with the point is
>to make some sort of impression on the far greater numbers of
>people listening in. In political forums it is more often numbers that
>count not the power of an arguement. A powerful argument is only
>of interest politically when it results in larger numbers of people
>agreeing with what you (or your government) want them to agree
>with.
>
> > It would be like me trying to argue that two people on this list
> > I don't know but I heard from this third person are idiots. The
> > argument is meaningless.
>
>Its only meaningless if you keep thinking in two dimensions as
>an argument being basically about two adversaries engaged in
>a search for the truth. If you think that the speakers are speaking
>for the benefit of the audience then a lot more things will make
>sense.
>
>The truth is almost never the point in political discourse, because
>political discourse is concerned with creating an environment that
>will facilitate a particular outcome and this usually takes numbers.
>In political discourse what matters is which "truth" gets to be talked
>about. If you and I were to get into a public discussion about the
>truth or falsehood of me being a rotten scoundrel then regardless
>of whether I am a rotten scoundrel or not I would in most cases
>be performing poorly as a politcal operator to even be having
>such an unhelpful discussion for me in front of an audience. If your
>intention was to discredit me and you could entice me into a
>serious discussion about whether or not I was a rotten scoundrel
>then their would be a point to what you were doing and I would
>be obliging you by taking you up on your choice of topic rather
>than making another one of my own.
>
> > The first question of an argument
> > should be "what are we hoping to solve" it he answer is nothing
> > than what's the point?
>
>This is true if both parties are seeking to discover shared truth. Alas
>when you add an audience as in debates in front of an audience
>or in all political exchanges it ceases to be entirely about that.
>
>-Brett
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 13:53:55 MST