rmcrobertson said:
Or, folks could try to learn how to offer more than belittling and patronizing remarks based upon inadequate understandings of ideas with which they are not familiar.
1. I see that nobody wanted to discuss what happens when we take concepts (sheep and sheepdogs, in this case) from science fiction novels, and apply them onto complex social situations using a broad brush. .
There's enough painting with broadbrushes going around here. In fact, this whole subject has been blown out of proportion. No where did anyone claim that people were literally sheep dogs or sheep. Some people, however, seem easily offended by the whole concept.
rmcrobertson said:
2. What Marx actually wrote was that capitalist societies necessarily exploit their members, not that, "wealth inequality," was the source of crime. He certainly did not claim that the members of the poor and the working class, let alone anybody else, were angels. In fact, one of the most-criticized (by "marxians," anyway) set of concepts in Marx concerned his reliance on human nature and inherent greed to drive history forward, and the absence of anything resembling a real consideration of gender (which might have bright up some interesting things) in his work. Oh yes, and his "religious," (if you prefer, Hegelian) concept of historical destiny, far too often used to justify all sorts of horrors. You might want to read something like Foucault's reworkings/criticisms of Marx--would you like references?.
Your defense of Marxians is, i'm sure, quite admirable, and telling. Of course it is clear that many Marxians and Neo-Marxians believe that Marx didn't go far ENOUGH, as is clear by your gender statement. You seem to have misunderstood my religious statement. I didn't mean that Marx was religious, I meant his followers treat Marxian ideas like a religion, replete with all the appropriate dogma and iron obedience.
rmcrobertson said:
3. I see that I am (again) personally responsible for Stalin, Korea, Vietnam, and no doubt, Hanoi Jane (who if the review I just read in the NYT of her bio is any guide, is even a bigger twit than anybody had suspected....shame, too, as "Steelyard Blues," is a great stoner movie) but I think you left out Pol Pot, who studied at the Sorbonne focused on very much the sorts of ideas you're attacking. I could assure you that I learned about this repulsive crap way earlier than you did, but what's the point? I'm sure your eyes are skidding off this very paragraph, since it doesn't fit the stereotypes employed to avoid actually looking at reality. So how 'bout this--that "sheepdog," bit has been used by nearly every tin-pot dictator of modernity...there's that wacky Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Bautista, all them bastards in Africa...I think we can get the body count up there with Joe Stalin, especially since it's my suspicion that all these SOBs tell themselves something about being sheepdogs..
Seems you're taking this discussion a bit personally. Unlike your linking your opponents to Hitler, at no point were you indicted as being part of any Marxist dictators atrocities. Maybe you're just so used to using that debate trick, you assume everyone else is as well. I in no way believe that you are the type of person who would engage in any of those activities. As I listed Cambodia, I didn't leave out Pol Pot. I am glad to see that you are still trying to link your opponents in this discussion with Hitler and other fascists, however. I guess if a trick works, keep using it.
rmcrobertson said:
4. As for the behavioral genetics stuff, well, funnily enough, I did a fair amount of my undergrad work with one of the founders of the current field, Robert Plomin. He insisted that it was ALWAYS a mistake to confuse the underlying genetic substrate with the complex causes of human behavior. Incidentally, something else I learned--there is a fairly-long history of pseudo-scientific attempts to ground social policy on the notion of genetic superiority and inferiority. I recommend starting with Galton's, "g," and working forward, and hey, don't miss Cyril Burt and that Robert Ardrey claptrap. But to quote my developmental psych prof, "The whole point of being human is that we're not slaves to our biology.".
Again, trying to anchor your opponents arguments by creating a strawman. At what point can you quote me as saying genetics are the sole cause of human behavior? You can't. I'm fairly well acquainted with human behavior, and I understand that one doesn't exist without the other. Claiming socialization is the biggest contributor to human behavior, however, is like claiming that a windows program has more to do with how a computer works than the hardware it runs on. They are irrevocably linked together. That is my point, and I defy you to refute it. The problem, however, with the idea of free will is this statement "We can do what we want, but we can't will what we will". I do like your consistency in, again, back-door attempting to anchor my argument with fascism. Albeit, this time it was more discrete, and is only discernable by your "psuedo-scientific" and "genetic superiority and inferiority statement". That can only be a backhanded label of eugenics, which, as we all know, is associated with Adolph Hitler. It's the primary reason that a rational, reasonable discussion of genetics can't be undertaken. There's almost a phobic scale response to the idea of genetics role in behavior. Is this the only line of debate available?
rmcrobertson said:
5. I liked the point about the Sixties and crime, even though of course it's being used to support the notion that it's them damn hippies-'n-liberals whut ruint this country. (When I read some of the touchy-feely, pseudo-scientific crap that's being used in education these days to help middle-class people avoid spending money, I even sort of agree.) But two points: a) crime has been dropping--probably because of the decline in numbers of males aged 16-24, b) that Happy America way back then--had a few little violences of its own. You know--racial segregation, war after war, completely-unacknowleged domestic violence, the constant abuse of workers, the Tuskeegee "bad Blood," experiments; yes, a big bag o'stuff, but all violences that I would consider a little tough to explain with sheepdogma..
So you arrived at all that from my pointing out the flawed state
ment that the 60's were LESS violent than previous decades? More strawmen.
6. I agree that it's wise to beware of political philosophies that calim to be pure science. But then, that's pretty much what I was trained to do in all them leftist classes--hey, here's a ref; try another of my teachers, E.P. Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory." You'll kvell at his leftist biography (head of Europe's CND, for one thing; dind'cha just know it?); you'll find confusion in his unrelenting, informed attacks on the claims of science in leftist social and cultural theory. Or try Christopher Hitchens; he's in "Slate," he supports having invaded Iraq, he loathes Big Money and thought Vietnam was a sterling example of genocidal stupidity. Or, just stick with the whole Dr. Tom Dooley Was A Saint Martyred By Godless Communism routine.
Hmmm, I think you're getting a little defensive considering you were only attacked for the statements you made about Hitler, and a few other erroneous comments. You're not the only one with a more complex position than it would first appear. If you have me pegged as a cut-and-paste, cardboard cuttout right winger that you can attack with cliche's, you're mistaken. Further, my statements about the 60's were a clarification of a silly statement made that violent crime was lower in the 60's than in previous decades, a statement that must have been made off the cuff as the facts are so enormously in the opposite direction. If we wish to have a discussion about what I believe the causes are, we'll have to start a different topic as that would be a long discussion.
rmcrobertson said:
7. As always, I see that folks are unable to write without adverting to the fantasized emotional states of those with whom they disagree ("People get pretty worked up..."), and without returning to the biological reductionism. That's OK by me. But it is what it is--a pseudoscientific analogy, not a simple picture of actual reality. Everybody relies on these at some point (one thinks of Marx and his, 'werewolf hungers," of capitalism, for instance), that's for sure. It only becomes dangerous when folks start claiming some absolutely-privileged access to the Truth, especially when their claim looks so much like an ugly history of such claims. .
This paragraph I have to agree with, and I think YOU might want to read it again. It's good advice, even if you didn't think it applied to you when you wrote it.
And yes, of course that applies to us worthless CommieSymps too.[/QUOTE]Really, quote me as calling you a commiesymp. Again, "getting worked up" ,hehe, never solved anything.
rmcrobertson said:
Uh...the "paultastic," site, which seems to have been put up by a very nice guy, also uses a discussion of what its author refers to as logic to claim that no other religion than his own--he's a born-again fundamentalist--can possibly be true or logical. And he has no idea what the religions he's attacking actually have to say. So, it might be wise to find a little better source for claims about rhetoric and logic--I recommend Geoffrey de Vinsauf, "Poetria Nova."
But then too, I figure if anybody who disagrees can be compared to a sheep, and anybody else's ideas immediately bring up a comparasion to Stalin, an occasional mention of Herr Schickelgruber is not all that out of line.
But to be sure, the whole problem with the sheepdog/sheep bit is that actual life is a tad more complicated than that.
What that has to do with his comments about using Hitler in any argument I have no idea, other than it is another of those grand old debate tactics known as "ad hominem attacks". They work like this. Anytime you disagree with some good point made by someone, but you have no method to attack what was said, attack the person. As we all know, attacking the person will immediately nullify their credibility and invalidate what they say. This is turning in to Debate tricks 101. I think there's enough painting with a broad brush to go around. For example, the world is more complicated than the idea that anyone who disagrees with a position MUST be a fascist in league with Hitler.
P.S. My intent isn't to snipe, merely to debate a philosophical perspective. I hope we are all adult enough to handle disagreeing without getting snotty. Personally, it's clear to me that rmcrobertson is an intelligent, well educated person. I just disagree with his position a few topics. Nothing wrong with that, that's why Baskin Robbins has more than one flavor. I promise to refrain from engaging in personal ad hominem attacks. Attacks on a philosophical position, however, seem perfectly valid to me. That's what debate is. If I am wrong, please let me know. And, of course, if one of the moderators decides that this line of discussion should not continue, i'll respect their decision.
