Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[sgtmac_46]

I'm not sure that I understand what the most-often quoted bit of Roosevelt's writings has to do with the topic of this thread, where it appears in a context that makes it look as though we should admire Hitler because, well dagnabbit, the man went out and DID things, as opposed to, say, Thoreau, who just sat around and read and wrote.

The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter.

This "two kinds of people," jazz? Yes, there are--people who think there are only two kinds of people, and people who don't.

Oh--and when the human race has finally grown up, it will have become obvious that violence is always a piss-poor, short term solution. At times a necessary one--but only because we're idiots.

I've detected a trend recently where those of a certain political philosophy who disagree with another point of view try to 'anchor' their opponents arguments as being Fascist by building a Hitler or Nazi strawman. I don't recall anyone but you and eyebeams mentioning Nazism or Hitler. You guys wouldn't be trying that old cheap debate trick would you? I think pretty highly of you guys, don't cheapen yourselves like that.

 

[arnisandyz]

I think you guys getting all worked up about thiss are putting too much into it. Its not meant to be a Thesis or a scientific study, but more of a "take it for what its worth". It starts out "One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me...."

Whether you agree with it or not, I though it was written in such a way to be easily understandable as to what he is trying to say (obviously not). NO, people are NOT dogs and NO people are NOT sheep, some people are having a hard time getting past just this.

"This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between."
(if you look at this not as one person being a sheep and another a sheepdog, but that everybody has both sheep and sheepdog in them to varying degrees, I see it as not having to rely on somebody else, but taking a step personally to at least be aware of the wolves).

 

[Adept]

*cough* Godwin's Law *cough*

 

[arnisandyz]

*cough* Godwin's Law *cough*

yup...can a mod please lock this thread?

 

[rmcrobertson]

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

And yes, of course that applies to us worthless CommieSymps too.

 

[KenpoTess]

Mod Note

Thread Moved to Study for content.

~Tess
-MT. S. Mod

 

[ginshun]

Good little essay. I think the responces to it in this thread pretty much illustate the point of it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just FYI, this came from a site dedicated to the Colt 1911 pistol. It seems to be a very good site; nice discussions, and willing to affiliate itself with:

http://www.wecembroidery.com/

But the sheep/sheepdog crap is ridiculous.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Just FYI, this came from a site dedicated to the Colt 1911 pistol. It seems to be a very good site; nice discussions, and willing to affiliate itself with:

http://www.wecembroidery.com/

But the sheep/sheepdog crap is ridiculous.

That's why I split all people, all over the world, every day (is that enough sweeping generalizations?) into two groups: Star-bellied sneetches, and those with no stars upon thars. Works for me.

D.

 

[Tgace]

I've detected a trend recently where those of a certain political philosophy who disagree with another point of view try to 'anchor' their opponents arguments as being Fascist by building a Hitler or Nazi strawman. I don't recall anyone but you and eyebeams mentioning Nazism or Hitler. You guys wouldn't be trying that old cheap debate trick would you? I think pretty highly of you guys, don't cheapen yourselves like that.

http://www.paultastic.com/interesting_winArgument.php

Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Georgia Ketchmark
-MT Sr. Moderator-

 

[rmcrobertson]

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.

 

[sgtmac_46]

...

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[TonyM.]

Gamma programming.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Perhaps if you avoided following up on something I specifically wrote with these sorts of comments:

"....this just shows the lengths that Marxians will go to do distort reality for political gain. The irony is that Marxians, any time they manage to gain power to 'fix' the so-called wealth and social inequalities, end up doing so at bayonet point, case in point the aforementioned Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, to name a few. Then they start instituting a little inequality of their own.

Further, much research by Marxian minded social scientists is of an extremely dubious and highly subjective nature....It's a completely subjective standard. A better one would be to ask the question, based on the totality of the circumstances, was officer behavior reasonable. We are to presume that this little gem is somehow evidence...

The lesson about Marxian philosophy is this, beware any philosophy that claims it is the only philosophy built on scientific principles. What will follow will be a harrowing journey in to the most dogmatic propaganda imaginable.

Take this jewel "The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter."

{This sort of}...dogma comes from those who refuse to let go of the anachronistic Marxian belief that it's all learned behavior about wealth inequality."

....then I wouldn't suspect that this was a too-personal response, or that I was being called a commiesymp or some such. You know--one of those who is just holding back till the glorious day when he can, at the point of a bayonet, impose Stalinism just like in the good ol' USSR? Or at least use, "the most harrowing propaganda imaginable?"

Ad hominem is as adhominem does. Therefore, it might be wise not to begin every response to a quote with one remark or another about the emotionalism of the person you're arguing with: "some people seem easily offended," or, "maybe you're just so used to that debate trick," or, "there's almost a phobic scale response," or, "I think you're getting a little defensive," and the like.

However, since you're traying at least to be polite, I'll tell ya my favorite 1980s Moscow streets joke: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. But in Russia under Communism, things are the other way around."

 

[sgtmac_46]

Perhaps if you avoided following up on something I specifically wrote with these sorts of comments:

"....this just shows the lengths that Marxians will go to do distort reality for political gain. The irony is that Marxians, any time they manage to gain power to 'fix' the so-called wealth and social inequalities, end up doing so at bayonet point, case in point the aforementioned Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, to name a few. Then they start instituting a little inequality of their own.

Further, much research by Marxian minded social scientists is of an extremely dubious and highly subjective nature....It's a completely subjective standard. A better one would be to ask the question, based on the totality of the circumstances, was officer behavior reasonable. We are to presume that this little gem is somehow evidence...

The lesson about Marxian philosophy is this, beware any philosophy that claims it is the only philosophy built on scientific principles. What will follow will be a harrowing journey in to the most dogmatic propaganda imaginable.

Take this jewel "The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter."

{This sort of}...dogma comes from those who refuse to let go of the anachronistic Marxian belief that it's all learned behavior about wealth inequality."

....then I wouldn't suspect that this was a too-personal response, or that I was being called a commiesymp or some such. You know--one of those who is just holding back till the glorious day when he can, at the point of a bayonet, impose Stalinism just like in the good ol' USSR? Or at least use, "the most harrowing propaganda imaginable?"

Ad hominem is as adhominem does. Therefore, it might be wise not to begin every response to a quote with one remark or another about the emotionalism of the person you're arguing with: "some people seem easily offended," or, "maybe you're just so used to that debate trick," or, "there's almost a phobic scale response," or, "I think you're getting a little defensive," and the like.

However, since you're traying at least to be polite, I'll tell ya my favorite 1980s Moscow streets joke: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. But in Russia under Communism, things are the other way around."

The only reason you should take those comments personally is if you actually represent the Marxian mindset I was referring. If not, then there is nothing personal to take.

 

[Cruentus]

Hi everyone...

I don't know what the big uprising is over this analogy. That is just what it is, you know...AN ANALOGY. That's it. It is an analogy that describes the difference between those people who are self-defense, protection, and safety minded, the majority who are not, and those who are preditors looking to prey on the majority who are not safety minded. And, btw, the 'sheepdogs' are not limited to civil service people in that speech.

I am not sure where some of you are getting the idea that this analogy is a justification for a police state, or propiganda to institute facism, but it does boggle me.

And, yes, I do believe that in many ways the great country I live in has turned somewhat facist, and will slowly getting worse if we don't all do something about it. However, saying that this analogy supports THAT...well... I am afraid that them are just windmills over the hill that there yonder...

What concerns me more then a simple analogy is the apparent aversion some of you have to wanting people to be self-defense and safety minded. We should all wanting to be "sheepdogs" and not wolves or sheep. And no, being a sheepdog doesn't really mean keeping the gunrack in your truck shined up. It means protecting your family and community by raising your kids right, paying attention to what goes on in your community, helping others, voting for people who are going to help good working people in your community rather then screwing them, etc., etc. etc.....as well as not being mindful of how to stay safe and how to protect yourself and others should something go wrong.

It amazes me that people are so pissy over an analogy, when it seems that we could all learn from it regardless of our political differences. :idunno:

Paul

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. We're not dogs or sheep. Nor are we all that much like them. But if one assumes that we are, then this question comes up: why do dogs herd sheep? what are sheep for?

2. The analogy was specifically being used by military and para-military people, which is a little disturbing.

3. The analogy's origins appear to be in things like, "Starship Troopers," a fun book but not a great social blueprint.

4. The analogy's defenders quickly started drawing upon the usual suspects to defend their argument.

 

[Han-Mi]

I just saw it as a call to make a choice. A choice to be a "repsonsible cictzen" or a "sheep dog" or whatever you want to call it. You don't have to be a police officer or in the armed forces to be a sheep dog, you just have to have the drive to take an active role in making the world a better place. I'm not entirely sure why so many people got so worked up about this post. That's my buck two five.