>>> jf noonan <jfn1 at msc.com> 11/23/99 04:06PM >>>
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> Although it is not a substantive argument to point to the
> fact that so many well-respected radical Black leaders such
> as Manning Marable
You obviously mean something very different than I do when you use the word 'radical'. Marable a radical? Please.
(((((((((((
Charles: OK what do you mean by a "radical" ? I mean left radical. Sometimes you sound kind of to the right. So maybe you mean Marable is not right enough for you. (((((((((((((
> Angela Davis, Jarvis Tyner, Leith
> Mullings, Charlene Mitchell , etc. , etc. support the
> Congress, their support is an indirect argument.
No it is not, it is argument by appeal to authority (I see you did well in sophistry class as well as in logic class.).
((((((((((
Charles: How would you know ? Your logic doesn't seem that good. This is more of a case of evidence than merely formal logic.
Since the support of these people is not the only basis for the inference, it is valid as some corroborative evidence. "Authority" is a loaded word. All it has to be is that I respect their opinions and judgement in general, have agreed with their political philosophies in general. And others might make the same inference.
Anyway, arguments by authority are not entirely devoid of value. Most of what anybody knows is by hearsay, meaning they are trusting the reliabilty, veracity and authority of someone else. How do you know the earth orbits the sun ? Did you carryout the scientific tests yourself or are you trusting the word of scientific "authorities" ? How do you know the civil war took place ? You weren't alive when it occurred.
((((((((((((((
You pull this shit when you argue with Kelly by saying "I asked X number of women and they don't think so", which in turn implies that Kelly isn't a "real" woman.
((((((((((((
Charles: The shit sophitry being pulled here is by you.
It is not a valid inference to say that reference to other women's opinions on an issue differing from Kelley's means she isn't a real woman. Just means that there's a bunch of other real women who outvoted her, and I'm going with their judgement.
(((((((((((
And Rakesh isn't a real black person, and Ange is an "objective racist" -- this last is particularly funny coming from a bitter old white guy on the plains of Illinois.
(((((((((((((
Charles: If you were really a radical, you would realize that there is no greater lack in the radical movement than white radicals, old and young, who are willing to miliantly struggle against racism among white people, and even among people of color , since we have Clarence Thomases galore these days.
Carrol, I salute you.
CB