>>> ForstaterM at umkc.edu 03/26/01 06:05PM >>>
I think what Charles is pointing to is the 'strategic' use of arguments that
one's audience might find persuasive, even if one arguing it doesn't necessarily
accept those basic premises. There must be a technical name for it in rhetorical
studies, like "showing your opponent is a hypocrite."
(((((((((
CB: Thanks for the elaboration of the approach, Mat. , although , I didn't really think of it as exposing hypocrisy , but as actually showing people how in another way they feel that they do have a connection to earlier generations that is real and causal , in some sense, and analogize that feeling or sense to their connection to the same prior generations' institution of slavery. I aim to dissolve this claim that Americans today have no connection to the generations of Americans from the past who carried out slavery. Everytime someone honors the flag or the national anthem , they claim they do have such a connection.
I guess the difference is that in calling something hypocritical one is seeking to discredit the contradictory words and deeds. Here I am seeking to preserve the historical sense of connection to past generations expressed in patriotism ; and transfer that sense of historical connection to , well, anti-patriotism of a sort, that is the discrediting of the conduct of the past generations. To the patriot I say, you are correct you are connected to past generations of Americans, but you have to take the debt along with the credit you own/inherit from that connection. Own up to the debt as you own up to the credit.
((((((((
In one of my interviews on reps. I said something like "Those who hold property rights dear must find cause for concern when a most fundamental property right--the property in one's own labor--is violated." mat
(((((((
CB: Yes, because we do aim to abolish patriotism and old debts and credits, along with private property and wage-labor ( property one's labor power as the only thing one owns). Revolution is a fresh start.
I thank Justin for his comment informed by expertise in formal logic and the history of dialectics.
"The technical name in rhetoric is actually the argumetum ad hominem,a term that has a more familiar meaning, quite distinct, in naming a fallacy of attacking a view because of who says it. ("Well, _Justin_ believes that too!). But it also names the (nonfallacious and indeed dialectical) approach of arguing from premises accepted by your interlocutor. --jks"
((((((
>>> ForstaterM at umkc.edu 03/26/01 11:27AM >>>
in my recent debates around kc on the issue, i've formulated a few responses to
the 'usual' myths/arguments against reps. when someone says that 'it happened a
long time ago...' my basic response is: the issue is not the amount of time that
has passed, but rather, first, whether or not an injustice was committed (are
there time limits to addressing injustices?) and, second, are there present
effects of the past injustice?
(((((((((
CB: On long term historical cause, I sometimes try to use patriotism and patriotic sentiment but with an opposite implication than most patriots, flagwavers I mean , draw. In other words, patriotic Americans have no problem identifying personally with all the good stuff they think happened in U.S. history. Fighting for and worshipping the flag , and "freedom" even, is rooted in a notion that causes and links to a long time ago are alive and well. I mean how do Americans and America rationalize their rights to the land they stand on except by tracing that "title" through events long ago in history.
Well, if history's causes are alive and well for what you like in them, they are also alive and well for what you don't like in them. Just as rights to land and property here are rooted in history, debts and obligations from wealth transactions from history have present day substance.
Anyone who feels a personal patriotic connection to America's history for freedom, with its consequent privileges of citizenship is logically bound to accept a connection to America's history of unfreedom, with its consequent obligations of citizenship. Patriotism is a doubleedged sword, and we should use the rarely used edge in this debate.