"David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-8701EC.08124707062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET...
> In article <kogjg0CF5mSIFwN2@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
> Helen Hall <usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <ddfr-5F46FA.15261506062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
>> Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>> >In article <Zp18w9BS2XSIFw6Y@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
>> > Helen Hall <usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> To some people their beliefs are an intellectual game; to others
>> >> (perhaps the majority?) their beliefs very much define them as who
>> >> they
>> >> are and are rooted not in intellectual logic, but in a sense of
>> >> morality
>> >> and also tied to emotions.
>> >
>> >Do you see those as the alternatives? One can't hold beliefs rooted in
>> >logic and take them seriously?
>> >
>> I don't doubt that beliefs arrived at by logical thinking can be taken
>> seriously. But in this case, merely altering the belief by pointing out
>> that the logic was faulty in one place or that the logic proceeded from
>> a misunderstanding of the evidence is only a matter of altering the
>> result of an existing thought process. There is no change to the person
>> or their way of operating. It's just business as usual.
>>
>> Changing a deep belief that was based on a religious or idealistic
>> principle, however, means changing who that person is by altering the
>> very fundamentals on which they operate.
>
> I'm not sure I can think of any arguments here that fit that category.
> Is the belief that Tito's government did (or didn't) kill a very large
> number of people, or that submission fees by authors to pay the cost of
> reading slush would (or wouldn't) make the system work better, or that
> a government run medical system works better (or worse) than a market
> system, a deep belief based on a religious or idealistic principle?
>
& of course, then there's your tendency to, whenever something like this
comes up, to mention all the most flammable questions of the last however
many years apparently with the the purpose of igniting all those flame wars
again. Or do you seriously believe that a practice that has, time & time
again, reignited flame wars will somehow fail to do so this time? If so, I
think that's called failure to learn from experience.

"David Friedman"
> > I'm not sure I can think of any arguments here that
> > fit that category. Is the belief that Tito's
> > government did (or didn't) kill a very large number
> > of people, or that submission fees by authors to pay
> > the cost of reading slush would (or wouldn't) make
> > the system work better, or that a government run
> > medical system works better (or worse) than a market
> > system, a deep belief based on a religious or
> > idealistic principle?

"Suzanne Blom"
> & of course, then there's your tendency to, whenever
> something like this comes up, to mention all the most
> flammable questions of the last however many years
> apparently with the the purpose of igniting all those
> flame wars again.

I don't think it likely to reignite those flame wars,
for to my recollection, everyone in the end accepted
that Tito's government murdered very large numbers of
people. Towards the end, some were arguing that it was
right to do so, an argument apt to discredit whoever
makes it, and therefore, when that argument was met with
disquiet even amongst enthusiastic, it stopped being
made.

In short, the argument was in fact resolved. Even if
one side is reluctant to admit it was resolved, they are
equally reluctant to continue to openly support mass
murder.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

> In short, the argument was in fact resolved. Even if
> one side is reluctant to admit it was resolved, they are
> equally reluctant to continue to openly support mass
> murder.

Sorry, but that only means they got tired of arguing, not that they now
agree with you.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

In article <1iib588.fyt1vfey7fxoN%zeborah@gmail.com>,
zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:

> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > In short, the argument was in fact resolved. Even if
> > one side is reluctant to admit it was resolved, they are
> > equally reluctant to continue to openly support mass
> > murder.
>
> Sorry, but that only means they got tired of arguing, not that they now
> agree with you.

You could, if sufficiently curious, go back and check the thread. Going
only by memory, I think in this case James is right. The poster who was
denying that Tito had killed a very large number of people eventually
conceded that the data supported the claim that he had.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

"Zeborah" <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1iib588.fyt1vfey7fxoN%zeborah@gmail.com...
> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> In short, the argument was in fact resolved. Even if
>> one side is reluctant to admit it was resolved, they are
>> equally reluctant to continue to openly support mass
>> murder.
>
> Sorry, but that only means they got tired of arguing, not that they now
> agree with you.
>
Yep.

James A. Donald wrote:
> > In short, the argument was in fact resolved. Even
> > if one side is reluctant to admit it was resolved,
> > they are equally reluctant to continue to openly
> > support mass murder.

Zeborah wrote:
> Sorry, but that only means they got tired of arguing,

Before they stopped arguing, there was a visible shift
in their positions, a scramble to shade their opinions
and reinterpret their past positions and statements to
something more defensible and less abhorrent. From
implying that communist terror is merely moderate humane
social democracy in higher and purer form, afflicting a
mere tiny handful of really wicked people who thoroughly
deserve it, they moved to a different meta message,
instead implying that they were really moderate humane
social democrats, not supporters of communist terror.



--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald