At 2:12 PM -0400 16/12/2000, Darryl Shannon wrote:
>Kat: what in YHWH's name leads you to believe that I am "right-wing"?
>I do admit to a belief that capitalism is a morally superior economic
>system. How does that make me right wing? How does that make me in
>favor of starving people to death?
What she was actually saying, as far as how I read it, was that while one
system overtly and actively eliminates all dissent using violence, the
other system simply renders dissent unprofitable and effectively eliminates
dissent via inherent, passive, yet structured resource-distribution
controls.
>While pretending to draw a distinction between capitalists and
>fascists, you actually equated them. And since you equated capitalists
>and fascists, and then said that I was a capitalist, you have therefore
>effectively stated that I am a fascist.
Darryl, you're on a roll for funny logic today, and I'm not sure if you are
doing it on purpose to sidestep the argument or if you're really committing
logic errors. Now, I'll admit that the last sentence relied on a certain
kind of us-vs-them humor that probably was insuting, and that I can
understand. However, she didn't really outright say what you're claiming,
because she noted that for her the distinction is irrelevant, but for
fascists and capitalists it *seems* to be relevant. However, I'll assume
that your logical errors are accidental, because assuming otherwise is not
something I want to do. So I'm going to try sketch out the logical error in
some detail.
If you want to break it down syllogistically, attributing a quality CANNOT
place a thing in a category, until one has shown that the given quality is
held exclusively by members of that given category. For example, the
syllogism:
Every man is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
... is one we would accept, not only because it is obviously true, but also
because the minor premise acts correctly; it puts the specific object of
the syllogism into the category directly, rather than trying to put it
indirectly by attribute. One cannot accept the syllogism:
Every man is mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
... because we could substitute Socrates with any number of things that are
not men but are mortal. For example, Kat could say, "Hey, wait a minute.
Mortality isn't sufficient proof of manhood! I am mortal." She'd be right,
because nobody could accuse her of being a man. Mortality is not a quality
held exclusively by men, and therefore the quality cannot be held as proof
of belonging to that category. The case you have raised is similar, in that
Kat has, in her comment, drawn a line (creating two categories very
clearly), and attirbuted different behvioral predilections to each. The
syllogism Kat would have made, had she presented her argument in that
format, would not likely have been what you seem to have sketched out,
which I'd express as:
People who are in favor of killing their opponents are fascists.
Capitalists are in favor of killing their opponents.
Capitalists are fascists.
Capitalists are fascists.
Darryl is a capitalist.
Darryl is a fascist.
I can understand why such an argument about oneself would be upsetting, but
I don't think that was the argument she was making (though I'll let her
speak for herself). I would suspect that the best that you can argue is
that she was saying that fascists and capitalists have certain qualities in
common -- and this might be where you can disprove her. Perhaps, such as
follows:
People who are in favor of killing their opponents are questionable.
Both capitalists and fascists are in favor of killing their opponents
[though by different means].
Both capitalists and fascists are questionable.
If you can argue successfully against the idea that capitalists DO prefer
to starve their opponents [to death], then you'll have a leg up in this
debate, because that is the glaring assumption that Kat has made.
That is, if we take it literally. Less literally, I would read the post
partly as a humorous jab, and partly as an attempt to point out that for
any system there are unfreedoms and oppressions that exist and which tend
to safeguard the elites and destabilize the possibility of resistance or
alternity, and that those who favour and extoll the system tend to be
blinded to any parallels it may have to other systems, despite whatever
differences exist. But, that's my reading and I'm sure Kat can perfectly
well articulate her own intention better than I can.
Just my thoughts.
Gord
