----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:35 AM Subject: RE: Rhetoric of debate (was RE: Treatment Of Prisoners)
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda > > [snip] > > > There's another possibility, one that seems more tenable to me. You have > > more sympathy for Jeroen's views than mine - therefore his mode > > of argument > > seems more agreeable to you. > > A fine, fine theory, except wrong. I agree with you, not Jeroen, on the > issue. I'm more disturbed by sloppy defense of what I believe than sloppy > defense of what I don't believe. Consider who is weakened by poor argument. > What does it do to the United States when we defend ourselves with arguments > that don't stand up? What do *you* conclude when your opponent resorts to > ad hominem attacks or a double standard? Nick, I reread the exchange between Doug and Gautam, and I just don't see the ad hominem attack. There was a long discussion of the facts and the legality, and then an offhand comment that the facts won't change the arguments of some people. Now, compulsion is a word with a lot of baggage, especially if you are married to a therapist. However, self mutilation is a very extreme example. More common examples is the need to spread butter evenly on your toast before eating it, or eating when nervous. I am familiar with obsessive-compulsive disorder in DSM-IV and the mild and extreme forms of this disorder. But, I'm sure that Gautam wasn't referring to this type of behavior. I'd bet dollars to donuts that its in reference to a quick reaction to consider the US or Israel at fault in any dispute that is seen with many people. Indeed, Gautam has referred to it in general in Europe for some time, and has given documentation of highly placed people making horridly anti-Semitic remarks in polite society. Since the French ambassador was not recalled after the statements that were refereed to, how in the world can we come to any conclusion but that the statements were not considered to be seriously out of line by the French government? Think of how quickly senior officials have fallen after racist remarks are made in the United States. I've also worked with Europeans for many years, have been to Europe many times (both for work and pleasure), and have many European friends. I see this attitude in a minority of Europeans that I've talked to. But, I have seen it. I have a hypothesis for the source of it. As I mentioned before, I see the class system as much stronger in Europe than in the United States. This view is shared by those Americans I know who have worked in Europe. Given that, one can come to a conjecture. It is that Jews and Americans do not know their proper place. The proper place for ethnic minorities is taking the jobs the real citizens of a country do not want. It is not to become more prosperous than the real French or the real Germans. The United States was, for the most part, not founded by the social elite. Since, approximately, the time of Mark Twain, it does not show proper deference to Europe as the Old Country. It is brash and bold, and does things without regard to the way they have always been done. We don't know our place. Having said that, let me restate that I don't consider this the majority view of Europeans. Most criticism I've personally heard has been measured and based on fact. I may not agree with it, but I can see a logical basis for it. An example of this is my using a dryer to dry my clothes all the way instead of just to slightly damp..and then hanging my clothes up was called wasteful. Another is the criticism of the cowboy approach Americans take to engineering by British engineers I've worked with. Still, I see a reaction to Jews and Americans being "uppity." Dan M.
