- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Reason was quite sufficient for the argument you bailed on.

Posted by: DonS ( USA ) on November 05, 1999 at 16:17:04:

In Reply to: Apparently you did posted by Quincunx on November 03, 1999 at 13:23:02:

: : Don: Your argument relies on refering us to some book--an appeal to authority, since you don't seem to have any other argument.

: Qx: Bzzzt....wrong! First of all Referring someone to a book is not an appeal to authority.

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

:John Ralston Saul is fairly marginalized and not cuurently in a position of power. Even though he was a part of a Paris-based investment bank and did partake in the start-up of Petro-Canada his writings go directly at the heart of capitalism. I don't agree with everything he writes and he certainly doesn't seem to understand labour history.

: 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: Reason was quite sufficient for the argument you bailed on. 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: 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: : By the way, if you still take John Barron's writings about the Cold War so seriously you should at least understand that many other people here grew out of it over twenty years ago.

: : 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?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup