From: matus (matus@matus1976.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 18:04:16 MDT
Harvey wrote:
> > > I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of
> these people
> > > have ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
> >
> > I find this particular example interesting. Harvey, what
> if someone
> > accuses somebody of one of these and has evidence to support that,
> > even a 'tiny kernel', what then?
>
> If there is real evidence, then the attack is not slander.
> Because the defense against slander is that the statements
> are true. But it is still ad hominem. The debate is aimed
> at the individual person instead of the topic.
Begging the question, who determines if the evidence is 'real' ? You?
The accusee? The list by popular vote? A jury? If, for instance,
someone was to say of the Indochina wars that 'the good guys won' and,
in fact, the communists won, would that be 'real' evidence that the
individual in question considers the 'good guys' to be the communists?
Rhetorical, as you note you don't want to partake in that particular
discussion.
>
> > Further, Harvey, since you have made a good presence at suggesting
> > what could be considered to be good conclusion to
> reasonable draw from
> > others comments, I wonder how you interpret Jeff's statements?
>
> I have no interest choosing sides in this political battle at
> the same time I am trying to enforce list rules.
Given that it seems you have only enforced list rules when those of
ideologies you tend to oppose are suspected of breaking them, it seems a
possible interpretation that you are attempting to force this board to
be more of a representation of what you think it should be. A laudable
goal if you have objective and honest interests. However, citing your
comment that the ExI lost funding because of what someone had posted on
the list and did not like, it seems you have an incentive to push the
list away from things you think others may not like.
If I had been ready to toss some money to the ExI, and I saw someone
post 'The good guys won' about Vietnam, and saw no critical response to
that, I probably would be hesitant to contribute.
>
> > Since this
> > revelation on Jeff's part sparked no comments, then perhaps
> I inferred
> > completely incorrectly and every other extropian out there
> is thinking
> > 'That's not what Jeff was saying, idiot!' Or,
> alternatively, perhaps
> > no one founds Jeff's comments startling at all, even though
> they found
> > my interpretation correct (or not). Or, third, perhaps no
> one saw the
> > post, as I am no doubt the member of many kill files.
>
> Or, fourth, the whole point of focusing on Jeff is off-topic
> and uninteresting to most readers.
Possible of course, or also they simply don't care that someone
considers a system of govt that has killed more than 170 million people
*this century* as the 'good guys' No doubt the lack of responses is a
combination of these various options, however considering there only
seems to be a handful of people on this list who are openly critical of
communist governments, and a number who are critical of those people's
anti-communist stances, I am forced to wonder how much of a role each of
those plays in the silence.
Maybe people want to read
> about perpetual progress, self-transformation, practical
> optimism, intelligent technology, open society,
> self-direction or rational thinking, and don't care whether
> you can prove anything specific about this particular list
> member or not.
>
Indeed people should want to read about those things, and conversely I
should hope they would be interested in condemning the opposition of
those things. All of those things are the exact OPPOSITE of any
communist government this world has ever seen. Which is the exact
reason why someone claiming to be a communist, or suggesting communists
are good guys, or claiming communist governments are legit SHOULD CAUSE
concern amongst a list devoted to progress, self-transformation,
optimism, *open societies* Etc, etc... As it is also the exact reason
why Eliezer suggested it would be unreasonable to find someone on this
list who is supportive of an oppressive stagnating immoral state.
However, there is someone on this list who makes statements indicating
support, legitimacy, or what have you of just such an extreme
non-extropian state.
Begging the question, how can these two diametrically opposed viewpoints
be resolved? Perhaps Jeff is referring only to an abstract morally
valid communist state, in which a platonic ruling elite preside over the
people and control the economy, but the people are bound to such a
system of their own free will *and* can choose to remove themselves from
participation in said system. I can only fathom. Or perhaps he is a
lurker spy from the workers world party? The later of which I doubt.
Since Jeff is uninterested in posting anything other than transcripts
from his latest discussions with Fido on the subject, I can only attempt
to resolve this from my own inquiry. And since I am of a small minority
that seemed to be concerned that an extropian would espouse such
anti-extropian ideas I am left to investigate the question on my own.
My archive digging is in process.
> Even if you do prove something? So what? Let's say we hold
> a star-chamber online and find Jeff guilty in absentia. You
> present your evidence and we all vote 100% unanimously that
> we find Jeff guilty of harboring supportive thoughts about
> Saddam Hussein and/or communism. So what do we do next?
Well first of all you stop calling my comments ad hominem, especially
when you do not even consider the weight of the evidence but
automatically assume I am making a personal attack. As you noted, if
the evidence is 'true' then it is not a personal attack. It is, in
fact, an objective observation. I note in your offlist communication
with me, you specifically cite my posting of what you called "evidence"
(with quotes) that Jeff is a communist as an ad hominem, or at least as
an example of inappropriate behavior. If the posting of evidence is an
ad hominem, but evidence is required to determine if someone's comments
are ad hominem, what do to? It seems difficult to carry on discussions
at all if you are not able to post evidence supporting your statements.
Second, we should sit back and asks ourselves why a person who considers
oppressive murderous stagnating regimes to be 'good guys' (paraphrasing)
could be attracted to this list, which is based on the exact opposite of
nearly everything that communist governments represent. The presence of
this ideology should cause concern, or *at least* spur further
investigation into the apparent conflicts, unless extropians feel that
communist governments are in fact compatible with extropianism (again,
perhaps some abstract morally valid communist state could possibly be,
but no such state has ever existed, and is certainly not in existence in
Vietnam) then such comments should at least spark some interest, as
there is virtually nothing more anti-extropic than the communist
governments the world has seen.
Move
> the trial into the sentencing phase? What exactly is the
> end-game to this process you are pursuing?
Open discussion, and self analysis, and working toward identifying what
extropians might value, and seeking the truth, working toward extropic
goals, etc. etc.
> > However, in attempting to do this, If I should point out
> > that (for example) Jeff's arguments are in support of
> communism, am I
> > not directly implying that he is also, since he is the one making
> > those arguments? Thusly, I could be accused of an ad hominem, even
> > though I am attacking the argument, and not the arguer.
>
> Not at all. Even in your own question, you attribute the
> implications correctly "since he is the one making those
> arguments". No one should accuse you of ad hominem if you
> attack the argument and not the arguer. That is the
> definition of avoiding ad hominem.
>
You are absolutely correct, in a perfect world. But I think you are
being too literal. If someone says A = B, then says B = C, and I
suggest then that they are saying A = C, it is absurd to not think I
would be implying that that some actually suggests A = C. If that
person makes the statement of A = B and B = C in a manner that suggest
he believes both of those statements to be true, then my pointing out
that A = C would necessarily imply that he also *believes* A = C. The
true and complete separation of arguer from arguments is not going to
happen, clearly every one can tell a good deal about my ideologies from
what I argue, and unless this list is rife with people arguing for
things that are not in their own ideology (which I am sure happens
sometimes) then the arguments they make can in most cases (unless
evidence arises suggesting otherwise) can be assumed to be a reflection
of their ideologies. In that context, unless both parties start from
the onset by clearly stating that this may not necessarily be what they
endorse, then ad hominem is ALWAYS present by implication by merely
asserting the opponents holds opposing opinions!
However, I will no doubt focus only on attacking the arguments, and not
the arguers, but extropians should be aware that ad hominems are not as
clear cut and as easy to pick out as one may first think, witness the
recent long discussion on what exactly constitutes and ad hominem
attack.
In this case, someone says 'The good guys won in Vietnam'. I note then
that since the communists won in Vietnam (perhaps he would take issue
with that, that they were communists) then he is suggesting that the
communists are the good guys.
To be clear, my paraphrasing of 'the good guys won' is not 100%
accurate.
The actual statement can be found here:
http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::Y0NjMwdx-YHAW-Whs2-BiF7-Kk
BxYCN5VzJY
And reads:
"Hell!, my side--the right side--prevailed--though at horrific
cost--back when it was the central event of my generation. Hooray!
Having taken my victory lap, it is now time for me to get on with
looking to the future."
The people of Vietnam probably share no great optimism about the future,
as they are less free today than they were before the Vietnam war.
> > Harvey, I would be interested in seeing some examples if
> you have them
> > readily available, especially if you feel I am guilty of any of the
> > behavior you mention as I was recently informed that there
> have been
> > complaints about my posts. Though no specifics were provided, I am
> > always up for self-improvement.
>
> I cannot imagine that this will do any good, and will only
> lead us into further debate over minutia. But since it is
> only fair, I will send you some examples off-line. However,
> please realize that these few examples of people being
> accused of having enemy ties are just a very small part of
> the larger ad hominem problem which violates list rules.
> Also note that the specific examples of the past are not as
> important as how we are going to deal with them in the future.
Noted, and an important distinction to make
> Seriously, I can't find any of these examples directed by
> name against an individual. I seem to find these
> occurrences, but they are generic discussions about topics
> not people. For example, Eliezer's discussion about
> patriotism contains those specific phrases. He did not call
> any person any names, mention any specific list members, nor
> could they seem to be applied to the person he was debating
> at the time (Lee Corbin). These references seem to be part
> of a rational discussion about the topic without accusing
> each other or anybody else. I can only speculate why you
> assumed that these descriptions applied to the particular
> people you mention. I think you are having difficulty
> distinguishing between an attack on the argument and an
> attack on the person. Eliezer and others do not seem guilty
> of the ad hominem, nor do I find any searching for the
> phrases you suggested.
>
> > I note that as good as you have been a pointing out
> dishonest debating
> > I don't recall you ever criticizing statements like the ones above
> > directed toward people who have a generally different ideology. I
> > also never once saw you criticize Humania for making such
> comments to
> > me as
>
> I am not perfect. I simply don't have time nor the
> omniscience to catch every possible case that should receive
> my comment.
Of course, however, if you were to assert only Ron, MaxPLumm, myself,
John Clark, etc. and those who share similar political stances are the
only ones making for bad debating, I think you should be considered
dishonest. We are all humans and we all have faults, I would like the
list to note that just because you don't have the time to point out any
inappropriate behavior by members who profess political ideologies that
tend toward opposition of the people listed above, does not imply that
they commit no inappropriate behavior, fair enough?
Further, I am surprised at your responses to my pointing to Humania's
comments.
--<snip most of humania's comments.>--
> > "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity."
> >
> > "I will not stop shouting, I am against THIS war. You are
> deadly wrong
> > and you should hear it again every day!"
> >
> > Do *any* of these statements belong on this list?
>
> I'm not sure you understand what ad hominem is or exactly
> what the list rules prohibit.
Note I did not say that these were all ad hominems, I asked if these
statements belong on this list. While the adamant ad hominems you
police do not belong, these statements, along with Jeffs lengthy
paragraph of dog barking, certainly do not belong on this list. I have
asked Humania repeatedly to cease posting blanket accusations,
characterizations and hand waving emotional outbursts, and try to post
specific comment or ideas. Vague ambiguous emotional comments like this
do as much to harm the political image of ExI as any 10 questionable ad
Hominems do, unless of course the above comments happen to coincide with
the ideology of the person perusing, or judging, the list. Do you agree
that outbursts like this, and Jeff's barking dog transcript probably
should not be posted?
Note, I am not advocating the implementation of any new list rules,
merely pointing to something that list members could hopefully use as a
personal posting guideline, if you do not have a productive comment to
make, please try not to post.
None of these seem to be
> obvious personal attacks on specific list members. Many of
> these are obviously directed at public figures, whole
> political parties, or specific points of view. Although the
> word "you" is ambiguous and would need to be quoted in
> context, I don't see anything here that remotely is
> comparable to the kind of personal accusations of specific
> political activities or associations that I complained about.
I disagree, the use of 'You(plural)' could just as easily be interpreted
as a blanket ad hominem.
E.g.
> > "You (plural; the patriots here) twist around the words of your
> > opponents"
i.e. Everyone whom I consider to be a patriot intentionally alters the
words of opponents (i.e. is dishonest, is a liar)
> Instead of being attacks on individuals, these seem to be
> attacks on particular political beliefs, which is not against
> the rules.
Or, just as easily, they could be considered attacks on groups of
individuals, and rightly do not belong on the list. Had I said
"You(plural) war opposers are supporters of Saddam's regime" No doubt
all hell would be raised, with each individual war opposer reasonably
assuming I was accusing each and every one of them of supporting
Saddam's regime. But when an opposite statement is made (and many
similar ones) it slips by without attention.
In conclusion, I appeal to everyone on the list to refrain from obvious
ad hominems (which I don't think we see very often) but also not to be
so quick to judge any disagreement or critic of ones ideas as an ad
hominem. Additionally, I hope posters make an effort (as I will) to
only post productive contributions to conversations.
Regards,
Michael Dickey
The (not) free status of Vietnam
www.freedomhouse.org
<humanias full comments>
> > "You (plural; the patriots here) twist around the words of your
> > opponents"
> >
> > "you (plural) were fucked up by your humble servants called Bush
> > administration"
> >
> > "could it be that your Pentagon and-White-House-dominated
> thinking in
> > union with adrenalin-aided visualizations of smashing those Middle
> > Eastern bastards which amplifies the already existing territorial
> > bullshit in your brain"
> >
> > "vicious circle of astonishingly flexible ancient lizard brain
> > circuits that spread the message towards the cortex to
> merely defend"
> >
> > "If in June 2003 you are still on the same level as your fellow
> > republican US politicians while dealing with ultra
> conservative monkey
> > business like territorial pissings with funnily talking Arabs who
> > stubbornly deny wearing blue jeans and display this strange
> effeminate
> > outfit while unexpectedly rejecting the American way of life
> > altogether"
> >
> > "Meanwhile I am trying to find a new language to communicate my
> > extreme disgust at the way some incurable patriots here
> still stick to
> > His Phoniness George "Proud 'n' Pray" W. Bush and his gang of
> > deathists, called US government How many more times must you be
> > fucked up by these dilapidated religious fundamentalists"
> >
> > "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity."
> >
> > "I will not stop shouting, I am against THIS war. You are
> deadly wrong
> > and you should hear it again every day!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 19 2003 - 17:39:17 MDT