Cristobal S Ruiz wrote:
this is typical of the apologists of neo-lib policies in the third world
and
this rather objective comment
Objective? In their face, your comments are textbook examples of sophistry. Here's an affirming-the-disjoint fallacy: cell telephony (etc.) is not a sufficient condition for economic development. Therefore, it is uncorrelated to economic development. QED Another affirming-the-consequent non sequitur: If "neo-libs" have used cell telephony as a measure of economic development (ignoring housing, education, health and literacy) and Ulhas forwarded notes to lists about cell phone use in India insinuating it is evidence of economic development, then Ulhas' behavior is "typical of apologists of neo-lib policies in the third world." QED Appeal-to-majority fallacy: Most of us think that "neo-liberalism" is bad. Therefore, it is bad. Corollary: whatever measures "neo-liberals" use to quantify economic development are invalid. QED Ad-hominem fallacy: If Ulhas thinks that cell phone use is a better measure of economic development than life expectancy, then his motivations or character are flawed. Since his behavior is "typical of apologists of neo-lib policies,' then (by insinuation) he must be an "apologist of neo-lib policies in the third world." QED I could go on and on. But, you know what, sloppy reasoning on a list like this is no deadly sin. What I really find excessive is the posturing, the pretense of being the self-righteous guardians of the progressive cause, fulminating against those who dare question the dogma. Shooting the messenger and leaving the message intact. We don't need that. Treat others as you'd like others to treat your mother. Julio
