🚀 go-pugleaf

Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:okwvoq9hg7.fsf@proline.sbc.man.ac.uk...

...

>   Bill> Leaving those particular definitions aside, one can make a
>   Bill> good case that attempting to convince someone of something you
>   Bill> know is not true - or which you know is a grey area with
>   Bill> unstated disputing arguments - it at least dubious from an
>   Bill> ethical standpoint, at least if you present it as a belief you
>   Bill> yourself hold instead of something which is clearly a
>   Bill> political statement.
>
>         I think that you underestimate the depth of the differences
> between different peoples view points. Their is the possibility that
> Chomsky actual thinks that what he say is largely true. I tend to find
> his writing convincing, even if it sometimes has to fight against his
> own prose (this is me criticising someone elses stilted prose
> right?).

I have no problem with the ethics of someone who believes his statements are
true (as distinct from believing that his statements don't have to be true
as long as they support a position which he believes should be accepted) and
is truly unaware of any contrary arguments which he believes may also have
validity (though it's fine not to mention opposing arguments that he
believes have no validity).

This has nothing to do with opposing *viewpoints*:  it has to do with one's
ethics and its application to debate.  And I'd still assert that saying
something you know to be untrue or at least questionable *from your own
point of view* just to support your point, no matter how strongly you
believe in the virtue of that position, is unethical.

I've received some private email suggesting that this discussion is too
off-topic for comp.arch.  My own feeling is that any discussion in which a
fair number of comp.arch regulars choose to participate is ipso facto
appropriate fodder, but I also value the participation of other people who
may feel differently, so I'll bow out at this time.

- bill

>
>         When I argue I do try and suggest when there are differing
> view points on the matter, but I realise that this is a lost
> cause. There are always differing view points. In many cases for
> instance things that are commonplace in the US are treated with shock
> in the rest of the western world (the execution of minors, or those
> who were when they commited the crime, for instance). Similiarly I
> have when I have described myself as a Marxist, or worse communist
> many US people (and indeed people in my own country) act like Ive just
> crapped on the table. I dont consider that I am some chronic weirdo, I
> dont consider that I am an evil and manipulative individual any more
> than I have ever been. When I discuss that I think Marxism holds much
> more for the future than the oligarchichal capitalism we live under am
> I guilty of presenting this as a belief I hold or as a political
> statement? To be honest I can concieve of making a political statement
> that I didnt believe. To me this is what the reality of politics is
> about.
>
>         Phil
>