Subject:
|
Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:32:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@ioSPAMCAKE.com
|
Viewed:
|
1935 times
|
| |
|
|
<37DF8CDA.DA847F05@aeieng.com> <37DFA51E.EF0A5623@voyager.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Now see... THIS would be fun to debate. All that murder stuff is just
> too unfun...
I agree. I'll bite. :-,
> OK, who "lost"(1) this debate? Scott because he officially said the word
> "Nazi" first, or Sproat, who mentioned "Nurenburg Defense" which,
> although it does not explicitly contain the word, is clearly related?
Well, sure, I mentioned the Nuremburg Defense, true, but! It was well
within the context of its definition: claiming innocence to an act because
orders were being followed. The Nazi thing was certain to follow, but
anyone familiar with today's legal use of the Nuremburg Defense would
understand that I wasn't *ACTUALLY* accusing Scott of standing trial as a
Nazi, or defending one, at the Nuremburg trials.
Anyhow, the concept was not completely missing from Scott's post. I quote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> I just wanted to make certain that killing a person is
> totally different when you are a soldier, and that they have training for
> that.
I determined from this that Scott may have felt that, the moral weight of
certain decisions may be lifted by someone else giving the orders. This
concept of blind, hive-mind-like activity gives me the crawling
heebie-jeebies, and so I wanted him to clarify his position.
> If it wasn't Sproat (judges, do we have a ruling?) does he get style
> points for inciting Scott to go out of bounds, or does he get an
> admonition for flagrant provocation?
I'll vote for style points, thank you very much. :-,
But it *was* a flagrant provocation. I didn't just get Scott to say the
word "Nazi", I earned bonus points by making him lose his cool.
Here's where I confess that I was baiting Scott. (1) I picked the person
who had said the most imflammatory and personally insulting statements to me
lately, and dropped the chum in his water. He chomped not once, but three
times! This is getting way too easy. However, I was baiting him in context
of his argument, using his words against him. It's a very effective tactic
I've seen used by many a college prof (as it either causes the recipient to
reconsider potential flaws in his or her argument, or exposes the flaws if
there are too many), and is certainly on-topic for a debate ng.
Plus, it's kinda fun to fight knee-jerk with a jerky knee.
I've reaped the whirlwind in this: he's pissed at me, and it shows in his
continuing flames...
> under defacto Usenet rules which say that the first person to
> mention Nazis or Hitler automatically loses a debate, no matter what the
> topic. :-)
I just want to interject this: De facto rules, while having the support of
the vocal majority, are not necessarily the best solution to an issue. I
give 'em, oh, 75% the weight I give the "regular" rules.
But I'll quit for now, having lost by mentioning Nurebmurg. Confessing to
baiting someone has nothing to do with it. ;-)
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. Some of us excel in putting the "bait" in debate! :-,
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
He stands...like some sort of...PAGAN GOD or DEPOSED TYRANT. Staring out
over the city he's sworn to...to stare out over... And it's evident...just
by looking at him...that he's got some PRETTY HEAVY THINGS ON HIS MIND.
- Ben Edlund, 1996
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
