- Capitalism and Alternatives -

I realize reason alone doesn't suffice in most areas of life.

Posted by: DonS ( USA ) on November 12, 1999 at 11:43:08:

In Reply to: Look who's holding the bucket!! posted by Quincunx on November 07, 1999 at 22:19:06:

: : Don: Essentially it is. You are not using your argument, you are using one from the book.

: Qx: Man oh man! What a goofy way of arguing. Someone who thinks the Contras were freedon fighters will use anything to deny the real events that occurred. And all for ego's sake at that.

Don: Your argument is "read the book". It looks like a stupid book, based upon the reviews. I might look at it in a book store to see if it really is as stupid as it sounds.

: : : Qx: : As far as your McNamara statement goes it's best to read it from the horse's mouth. If anything can be said about the knowledge McNamara and the other hawks possessed in Washington at that time it's that their faith in statistics was dubious. That's Reason taken to it's most idiotic extreme.

: : : : Don: And to think: we are discussing this because of *your* failure to provide an argument based upon reason. As far as the "wiz kids" go, they failed in their war because *their* reason was flawed, just as your is.

: : : Qx: Reason by itself isn't enough. Didn't you know that?

Don: It would be sufficient for the argument you bailed on. Certainly, it isn't sufficient for all the things we do in life. Most of the time, we cannot analyze all of the relevant data in decision making, so we cannot rely upon reason for making decisions. This has no bearing on the argument that started this all, but it did allow you to change the subject . . .

: : Don: Reason was quite sufficient for the argument you bailed on.

: Qx: Look who's holding the bucket! And a rather tight grip goes with also eh? You seem to think reason alone will suffice but how about compassion Don? How about a social conscience instead of a game of one upmanship that you enjoy so much?

Don: I realize reason alone doesn't suffice in most areas of life. It does suffice in the argument that started all this. "Compassion" and "social conscience" can be used to justify all kinds of stupid and even evil policies, when reason is discarded.

: D:In any case, I think you are a little confused. McNamera had lots of statistics (as would a central planner), but he could never know all he needed to know to run the war in a "deterministic" manner (a failing the central planner also has). This isn't a failure of reason--it is a failure of a "deterministic" method of waging war (just as socialism fails due to central planning).

: Qx: There's nothing confusing about knowing full well that the Americans were so wrong about even getting involved in Vietnam.

Don: This has nothing to do with the methods McNamera employed in the war. Once again, you change the subject.

: This "deterministic method" (your words) is based on reason and bandied about by courtesans to the elites.

Don: This deterministic method is based upon poor reason. The same type of poor reason used in central planning of economies.

: How about common sense (not the Reagan idiocy),creativity, ethics, intuition,or even memory? Compassion doesn't come into play when you discuss Reason.

Don: All fine things, but they don't diminish the value of reason.

: : : Qx: Kweassa figured out your idea of reason and logic a while back.

: : Don: In fact, he got some stuff right and some wrong. But it wasn't so much my reason and logic but my definitions.

: Qx: He'll take care of your arguments quite well.

Don: We will see.

:Don, you don't have much of a social conscience so how else dop you expect to wind up in this debating room.

Don: Indeed, I do have a social consciences. For that very reason I oppose socialism.

: : : : Don: Whoever said I took John Barron's writings seriously?

: : : Qx: You did right here when you stated "I'm talking about an attempt at a communist "revolution" by Mexicans trained in the USSR and North Korea. This terrorist group didn't do as well as the Sandistas and others. It was stopped in its early stages, saving the Mexican people from Marxist terror." JohnBarron has been known to be quite disreputable for quite some time and he is the author mainly responsible for writing about that time. I read his stuff in the early Seventies and back then I believed it too. Mind you, the KGB did pull some really silly stuff in Mexico and it could have done great damage but keep in mind that these groups (23rd of September Communist League, etc) were highly unpopular anyways. Of course, it pales in contrast to what the US government has done throughout the hemisphere in order to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.

: : Don: Sorry, I forgot the author's name. I think you got it right. Can you back up the statement that he is "known to be quite disreputable" with some specifics?

: Qx: Look at the URL hyperlink that I provided. That is sufficient enough for most anybody. Especially those involved in investigative research and reporting.

Don: I looked. It was not compelling.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup