Subject:
|
Re: Elian Gonzales
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:08:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
780 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > To say anything else than that these facts about Cuba are indeed facts is • to
> > > > be an apologist for one of the last few hard line Evil Empire outposts.
> > >
> > > This is political and propaganda-based grandstanding, as well as utterly
> > > circular reasoning.
> >
> > It's grand standing but it's not circular, based on your statement about
> > preconceived notions. The gist of that was that you seemed to be in denial
> > about how bad things are there (and in other hard line communist states, and
> > in a bunch of non communist places as well). You've recanted so we'll let it
> > slide.
>
> Thanks!
> The circular part is that either the reader has to agree with your view, or
> else that reader's view doesn't count.
While true, that's not circular. For example, if you believe in strict
creationism, your view on particular steps of the evolutionary process being
true or not has no bearing, inasmuch as you've not accepted a fundamental
premise (that there is a process and that it has rules about how it works which
we can reason about, as opposed to those rules being overridden by the whim of
a creator) and therefore have no standing to comment on those steps. You
certainly can believe in creationism if you like, but to do so is delusional.
Similarly, if you deny facts about communist states, you're either an apologist
or delusional. (1) It is not my *opinion* that hard line communist states
routinely deny civil rights, it's a *fact*. Denying it as fact means that
you're not accepting a fundamental premise about evidence of human rights
violations (2). That means you're out of touch with reality, or you know darn
well it's true but choose to ignore it for other reasons.
If a regime does the things the communists do, it's evil. There's no escaping
that either. If you don't see systematically denying civil rights as evil, then
your moral code is flawed and I have no interest in your assertions. Why
exactly it is evil under my moral code has been discussed at length in the
past.
Pretty simple really.
1 - that's not a false dilemma I don't think, delusional or deliberately
ignoring... there aren't any other choices.
2 - that is, that we can use evidence that they happened to decide that they
actually did, even if state apparatus is denying that they did.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Well, that's a colorful, if tangential, example, and I expect it might seed debates of its own. (...) I do not assert that communist states do not routinely deny civil rights, nor do I accept the basis of such an either/or determination. As (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Thanks! The circular part is that either the reader has to agree with your view, or else that reader's view doesn't count. In addition, it's also a "false dilemma," (if I recall my terminology correctly) in that it presumes to force a choice (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
