Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Off Topic: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=23
- - - Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument.: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=271347



Message

guitarbuddha -> Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 29 2015 14:29:54)

Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument ?

Well I guess it all depends on what you mean by win. But if your imaginary adjudicator is a god without wit or discernment then here are some tools which are more invaluable.

1. Never ever follow the logic of an argument.
2. Quote other people's opinions out of context and then claim them as superior knowledge.
3. Never follow the logic of anyone else's argument.
4. Never investigate the internal inconsistencies of your own position.
5. Never question your own motivation.
6. Lean on your proximity (no matter how tenuous) to a presumed paragon. And thus, for the purposes of argument, BECOME them.
7. Be happier with your ability to irritate than to communicate.
8. When given a choice between demonstrating understanding of someone elses argument and being irritating then plumb for irritating every time.
9. Always remember that whilst some people abandon 'cool' as fatuous in their late twenties YOU might be able to carry it into late middle age with aplomb.
10. Sprinkle your posts with nuggets or buzzwords from hurriedly skimmed wikipedia articles. These should be fatuous but somehow insinuate that you are keeping more knowledge in reserve. Which of course you are, even if you haven't learned it yet.


anyway that is probably quite enough of that nonsense let me start the ball rolling on the ALTERNATIVE list.

1. Always take the bait, especially when you can see the hook.
2. Be pompous at all times.
3. Be condescending.
4. Travel alone.


etc.

Another slow day I guess.

D.



chester -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 29 2015 21:09:31)

Something that I'm always trying to internalize (of course I eventually regress):

'You've already lost if you're arguing with someone you can't see.'

Feel free to put that on a t-shirt. [:D]



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 30 2015 0:24:12)

quote:

Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument ?

Well I guess it all depends on what you mean by win. But if your imaginary adjudicator is a god without wit or discernment then here are some tools which are more invaluable...


Lol--this should be included directly below the masthead on the home page of every forum on the internet.



guitarbuddha -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 30 2015 11:50:58)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chester


'You've already lost if you're arguing with someone you can't see.'

Feel free to put that on a t-shirt. [:D]


Well Chester at age 42 if I had a T-shirt commemorating my every lapse in judgement I'd have no room left to store my paddling pool.

D.



Miguel de Maria -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 30 2015 13:42:50)

D, it occurs to me that all the best discussions can be boiled down to bumper stickers. Anything else is time-wasting filler!



guitarbuddha -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 30 2015 13:46:35)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria

D, it occurs to me that all the best discussions can be boiled down to bumper stickers.


Bad news for me, mine don't sell.

D.



gj Michelob -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Jan. 30 2015 15:57:55)

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason... is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
Thomas Paine.



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 16:35:05)

An interesting question. First, let's consider what we mean by "winning" an argument. Do we mean to convert the other entirely to our way of thinking? Do we mean, less ambitiously, to prevent ourselves from having our own minds changed, and thus remaining convinced of the correctness of our own position? Do we mean to just have the other disputants walk away, shaking their heads? Anyway, I've found that it is very difficult to get others to change their minds by a direct Mano a Mano confrontation, with or without an appeal to logic; there is just too much ego involved. My own views get altered by a usually slow process of having facts accumulate that empirically support a position--facts that either are shared by a very broad consensus of specialists in a field (I refer here to the sciences), or that meet a general test of "common sense". Once enough facts have accumulated in my mind, and a tipping point has been reached, then there is an often rapid final adoption of the new viewpoint.

There are those, and their number grows by leaps and bounds, who cannot be persuaded out of their view and into another by any means-- logic, facts, exhortation--unless there occurs a profound emotional transformation. Then, often, the new position is found to be an inversion or reversal of the old, and held as fervently as before, with the same lack of empirical evidence. Eric Hoffer wrote the best book ever on this sort of phenomenon of deeply-held irrational belief: The True Believer; it is mandatory reading today in an age of extreme religious fervor, weird conspiracy theories, and adherence to various social, economic, "scientific", or political isms. I discovered, for example, while wandering through the web, that there is a school within so-called Creation Science that holds that the earth does not rotate on its axis. Even within legitimate science, it has been found that a new scientific theory only gains near-universal acceptance when the last of the unconverted and unpersuaded actually die out.

The upshot of this is that one can only hope to finally persuade another if the other is open to receiving new and different facts, and then is capable of maybe unconsciously digesting these new facts and seeing that they best fit into a new and different pattern. Very difficult today when modern media allow one to only be exposed to information with which one already agrees (the Echo Chamber effect). Being very widely educated in a broad spectrum of the arts, humanities and sciences (another increasingly rare phenomenon) also allows for the plasticity of mind that can best accept empirical, fact-based arguments.

Rambling on a cold winter's day.



guitarbuddha -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 16:46:56)

Yeah runner. The goal should be to have a discussion in which knowledge is freely and fluidly shared and evaluated/considered without prejudice.

At the point when one notices that oneself or any participant is trying to 'win' then that goal has already been surrendered.

So instead of an exchange of ideas we have pathological contradiction, threads mostly composed of criticisms of other peoples communication style and unconcerned with the thread topic. Not to mention the four key water muddying approaches mentioned at the thread head.

Thanks for your considered reply Runner.

I like rambling too.

D.



gerundino63 -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 16:53:55)

Most People see their ego as who they are.
If that people have an agument they see it as part of their own.
If such people think they loose an argument, they think they loose their live.
So they want to win, their life is in danger![:D]



Sr. Martins -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:02:34)

You'll find that even if you preach "think for yourself godammit!", most people will give you the "that's your opinion, no reason for me to buy that"...

In the end it doesn't really matter if your point is to put many options on the table or to impose one opinion as the right one... dickheads will be dickheads.



Ricardo -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:03:13)

Losing the arguement I find ideal, as it means I have learned something.

Saddly (this is from a t-shirt I inherited from my father), "People who think they know everything are an annoyance to those of us who do."... so the learning part of losing the arguement becomes quite a rare occurance. [:D]



guitarbuddha -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:07:52)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

"People who think they know everything are an annoyance to those of us who do."


I WANT ONE.[:D]



Miguel de Maria -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:25:03)

Good call on the Eric Hoffer. I remember, with embarrassment, that being an uncomfortable read.



BarkellWH -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:43:50)

Allow me to comment on a slight variation of the subject of this thread. More than whether or not logic is necessary to "win" an argument, I find it appalling that so many people (perhaps a minority, but a surprisingly large minority) completely reject logic and science in reaching their conclusions and staking out their positions. I'm thinking specifically of the ongoing "debate" over climate change and man's contribution to global warming, and the current "controversy" in the U.S. over vaccinations and their relationship to autism.

In the case of climate change and global warming, the science is clear. While in the past there have been natural cycles of warming and cooling, there is no doubt that human activity has contributed to the current global warming. In spite of the fact that we also may be in a natural cycle of warming, that is not incompatible with man's activity accelerating the process. The scientific community is overwhelmingly united in this, yet there are those who deny that man has contributed to it. The "deniers" point to major snow storms, while conveniently overlooking the melting polar ice caps. (Global warming can account for both.)

The "anti-vaccers," (as they are called in the U.S.) claim that vaccines cause autism. It all started with the publication in a British medical journal in 1998 by a physician named Andrew Wakefield. He used a study of 12 cases to conclude that MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine causes autism in children. His study was later found to be fraudulent, riddled with skewed findings, and, most important in any scientific endeavor, could not be replicated by others. Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine and the medical journal repudiated the study.

Then along comes Jenny McCarthy, a former Playboy bunny and self-styled "personality" who had a child with autism which she blamed on vaccines. So what do we have? We have a disgraced former physician, a totally repudiated study, and a "personality" masquerading as a knowledgeable epidemiologist and self-styled "expert" proclaiming that vaccines cause autism, something that is completely rejected by the competent medical community.

Yet, there is a significant minority in the U.S. (usually upper-middle class, well-educated "moms") who have bought into this nonsense. For some reason, they cannot see how irrational a position it is. And here's the irony and contradiction in their stance: Most of these "anti-vaccers" think the Global Warming deniers are ignorant and reject science, while they themselves reject science with regard to their own positions on vaccines!

In both cases, the climate change deniers and the "anti-vaccers," logic, rational thinking, and science do not apply.

Bill



BarkellWH -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:46:21)

quote:

Eric Hoffer wrote the best book ever on this sort of phenomenon of deeply-held irrational belief: The True Believer;


Agreed, Runner. I read Eric Hoffer's book around 1970, and it has stayed with me all these years. Thanks for bringing it up in this thread.

Bill



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:48:52)

Ricardo, could you share with us an example of the circumstances of your losing an argument and thus learning something new? You don't need to reveal the details of the dispute(unless you want to), but it would be instructive to have your testimony. Was the argument conducted as a direct You versus Them confrontation or exchange, either face to face or via email or message board or whatever? I can't recall in my own case where a direct, confrontation-type argument I was in ended up with anybody changing their minds at that time. I have rethought my positions quite often after hearing others dispute an issue, when I have been convinced that both sides were actually well-informed, and better-informed than me on the subject. Then I've gone off and the digestion process I referred to before takes place; I try to find out more about the subject and to figure out what's going on.



guitarbuddha -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 17:54:35)

Hi Bill, I thought I'd chime in in agreement with you on the Vaccine/Autism things.

Firstly it is often claimed that we are increasingly 'risk averse'. We are not we are more 'responsibility averse' people evade responsibility and not risk, risk is increasing as the morally cowardly flee from responsibility.

Secondly the disgraceful antiscientist at the centre of the MMR autism debacle was mostly a PR agent for companies who sold discrete alternatives which addressed the three diseases of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) combined vaccine individually. For this he was handsomely renumerated and this is quite probably ongoing.

Thirdly the journalists who reported were chosen to explain science to laymen and women precisely because of their lack of expertise. So any PR story cobbled together in such a way as to make it more likely that their article would be scandalous enough to move closer to the front page is almost inevitably accepted by the journalist and by extension the newspaper readers.

And that brings us to the nature of 'bubbles' which although principally viewed as economic phenomena are pretty much standard human behaviour. The exploitation of fossil fuels is a bubble.

Bubbles persevere because there is at no time and advantage for anyone involved to change their behaviour until AFTER the bubble bursts. Anyone who stops before a crash is penalised, anyone who tries to blow the whistle is a threat to ongoing profits and will be sacked or marginalised.

D.



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 18:09:36)

Bill, your remarks on the anti-vaccination zealots were spot-on in identifying the growing phenomenon of people concocting their own facts to justify their preconceptions. The opposition to the AGW findings is compounded of 50% ideology and 50% ignorance. Jenny McCarthy has much to answer for, but she will doubtless double-down in defense of her position, and the anti-AGW lobby now has powerful allies in the US House and Senate. But there are actual proofs that the earth does rotate on its axis. And, speaking of vaccines, a dose of Hoffer's The True Believer acts as a powerful antidote and cure for an enormous spectrum of bizarre, irrational, and destructive beliefs and obsessions. I know through personal experience that this is true.



guitarbuddha -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 18:17:45)

I don't know if I would judge Jenny harshly.

PR companies working for special interest groups such as drug companies choose people who are emotionally vulnerable. They provide them with a target for their hurt and upset and then manipulate them for their own commercial ends. And the content hungry media do the same.

It is often said that if you give someone enough rope they will hang themselves. And this is often true but for me the villain is the fellow handing out rope, note the one left dangling.

D.



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 19:19:37)

David, your remark about not treating Jenny McCarthy as harshly as the other actors in this sorry affair is well-conceived, and I concur upon further reflection. She did, however, trade upon her public stature to spread her notions, and so I hope that, if she sees and acknowledges the error of her ways, she will be equally zealous to publicly repudiate her past statements. That will go a long way to restore her reputation.



Ricardo -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 3 2015 21:52:46)

quote:

ORIGINAL: runner

Ricardo, could you share with us an example of the circumstances of your losing an argument and thus learning something new? You don't need to reveal the details of the dispute(unless you want to), but it would be instructive to have your testimony. Was the argument conducted as a direct You versus Them confrontation or exchange, either face to face or via email or message board or whatever? I can't recall in my own case where a direct, confrontation-type argument I was in ended up with anybody changing their minds at that time. I have rethought my positions quite often after hearing others dispute an issue, when I have been convinced that both sides were actually well-informed, and better-informed than me on the subject. Then I've gone off and the digestion process I referred to before takes place; I try to find out more about the subject and to figure out what's going on.


Couple examples.

1. On steve vai message board many years ago, a guy named "brainpolice" and I had a long back and forth about modes versus keys. At the heart was this seeming silliness: If you have a basic chord progression like, Am7-D7...and that's really it to the song, I felt there was absolute no difference from thinking or describing it as either "dorian" or, ii-V7 of G major. Two sides of the same coin. He claimed if there is no resolution V-I, then it can only be described as modal, never as "G major"...and thus one needed to THINK also differently about the music.

After a long time I came to realize I did not understand fully the concept of MODAL music as a term....and after reading much about it in a book by a French author whose name I forget, but focused on TUNNING SYSTEMS, I realized there really was something to the other guy's logic. I never really could convince him however, that in flamenco music, they were NOT simply hanging on the V chord in minor, but non the less I had to admit his simple logic was correct in describing certain musical contexts that used equal tempered tuning, and mine was in fact NOT correct.

2. More interestingly, I don't think it was truly an arguement, but when NORMAN was on years ago describing solea vs Solea por buleria, I realized there to be a more specific terminology I didn't have in my vocabulary to distinguish individual cantes mixed in a single form. Specifically the buleria larga or corta and solea de jerez frijones, I used to all count as ONE form, called "Solea por buleria" and found it riduculous that certain aficionados claimed that term had no meaning to cante....but it turns out it's true. Call it what you want, there is a BETTER more precise description for individual letras.....Very mind opening.

3. With Estela many years ago it was long term back and forth about compas and cante, specifically regarding half compas and solea, and Taranto vs Taranta. I admit I was wrong, only because my personal perspective coming from learning most about cante via the world of DANCE....I had to swallow too much insult that it's Donn Pohren's "fault" or simply mine for being American (eye roll), when in fact it is truly a "fault" of dancers from spain , and their students and employed singers. I realized, after much rejection of the idea, that when she said "compas is different for the singer than for the guitarist"...that she was absolutely right, traditionally speaking. The singer has a freedom the guitarist didn't have...and I had unfortuneately been exposed to a square dance concept such that if so and so sang over the compas any OTHER way, it was simply "wrong", out of compas, and the singer had no clue what they were doing.

Admitting she was right about the idea that a singer singing taranto forces an essentially "free" melody INTO the compas for dance, was not easy, but it is exactly correct. I no longer hold it to a singer's ability if they don't "get" the square versions right for a specific choreography. In fact I have since done a full 180, and have to admit it's a sad loss that so many singers have evolved a square boxed in concept of how a melody "should" fit in compas. I hold the dancers orthodox methods to be accountable for the loss of majority of great cante. I also find it sad I can't really relate my thoughts to very seasoned singers that only know their orthodox versions and hold them as THE ancient "correct" way to do it.

Those are 3 off top of my head but I am sure there are several other examples.

There was a time Jenny Mcarthy could convince me of pretty much anything. [;)]



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 2:40:51)

Thank you Ricardo for your examples. I form the impression that the "new thinking" that grew out of these several dialogs matured in a somewhat slow-dawning, evolutionary manner, sort of like the steeping of tea in a teapot , and not as a sudden revelation that happens while in the actual heat of debate. Is this your memory of the timing? If so, it is very probably the way it happens for most people who find their views changed. If only politicians and pundits could also courageously affirm that they have changed their minds!



Ricardo -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 6:46:23)

quote:

ORIGINAL: runner

Thank you Ricardo for your examples. I form the impression that the "new thinking" that grew out of these several dialogs matured in a somewhat slow-dawning, evolutionary manner, sort of like the steeping of tea in a teapot , and not as a sudden revelation that happens while in the actual heat of debate. Is this your memory of the timing? If so, it is very probably the way it happens for most people who find their views changed. If only politicians and pundits could also courageously affirm that they have changed their minds!


Well, the arguments were long standing, but the realizations came quick. no 1 took some time after reading that book it hit me at once...I think it was "beat it" by michael jackson that was an example that I swallowed and it all locked in.
No 2, also, the logic hit me at once when I saw how quick Norman broke down each letra. And then no.3, I am sure it was after I got my hands on the complete collection of rito y geografia that it was a nice slap in the face wake call of something right infront of me I had never noticed before.

About climate change, I admit I indulged in differing view points for a while until I heard the hard numbers spouted off by N. Degrasse tyson regarding Volcano output vs industry...assuming those numbers were legit, the logic and concept became clear in conjuction with learning about the details about the carboniferous period leading to the great dying (permian). I still hold, however, that humans and our endevours are infact "natural", and that climate change was always inevitable anyway. Can we, or WILL we try to change because we understand this fact, or are we even supposed to try? I mean extinction and climate change is natural regardless if we are the cause. Arguing with numbers is pointless however. I think melting ice and odd weather on occasion are not going to convince the masses, but hard numbers will do better job.

About vaccine, it's simple gambling and odds. We have no choice but to be at risk, so it's about percentages which some people can't deal with. It's a one in a gazzillion chance if you do this YOUR BABY WILL DIE....some folks can't move forward on that.



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 14:17:57)

Without diverting this thread into discussions about climate change or about vaccines or whatever (and there are already many websites dealing with those issues), I did note your idea that whatever humans do can be considered "natural". I think the difficulty with this notion is that it completely bypasses the existence of choice in human affairs-- something we humans have that other life forms lack, or have only in a much reduced and limited form. We know that there are different ways of thinking about and dealing with problems; there are options that exist; there are various paths that can be traveled. The multiplicity of human cultures shows this. The Danes have selected to adopt and maintain one path, the North Koreans another. Because I can conceive of a future earth or a dream earth wherein humans have chosen to severely limit their numbers and so reorder their society such that they regard themselves as the curators of a museum planet, I know that such a rational and (relatively) steady-state civilization could exist. The Dutch have chosen to look into the future and then to think and plan and cooperate and to spend billions to protect their country from the threat of rising sea level and more violent storms. Other areas similarly threatened will do nothing ("It's All Socialism!", I hear the critics screaming). How can we say which of these behaviors is natural? I'll go along with you that the cumulative effect of all this can be called Human Nature, and it may be natural in that sense. But I think it is severely un-natural in that contemporary human activity and behavior sticks out like a sore thumb alongside the earnestness, order, and pattern of all our fellow creatures. They never so foul their nests as to endanger the entire structure upon which all rests.



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 14:47:36)

quote:

First, let's consider what we mean by "winning" an argument. Do we mean to convert the other entirely to our way of thinking? Do we mean, less ambitiously, to prevent ourselves from having our own minds changed, and thus remaining convinced of the correctness of our own position? Do we mean to just have the other disputants walk away, shaking their heads? Anyway, I've found that it is very difficult to get others to change their minds by a direct Mano a Mano confrontation, with or without an appeal to logic; there is just too much ego involved. My own views get altered by a usually slow process of having facts accumulate that empirically support a position--facts that either are shared by a very broad consensus of specialists in a field (I refer here to the sciences), or that meet a general test of "common sense". Once enough facts have accumulated in my mind, and a tipping point has been reached, then there is an often rapid final adoption of the new viewpoint.


Interesting comments. I would add that the selection of premises is as important to argumentation as the internal logic of the argument itself and with regard to real life issues is driven by emotion. I knew a person who was poor and as a result identified with other poor people and all of the excuses they usually give regarding their plight. This also entitled him—as far as he was concerned—to any and all forms of assistance and social programs no matter what it cost the taxpaying public. He eventually inherited a lot of money and his philosophy completely changed with regard to taxation and assistance for the poor. The change process is largely an emotional one in so many significant ways.



Miguel de Maria -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 16:22:02)

The thing about the vaccine issue is that emotional/irrational arguments populate both sides. The anti-vaxxers have little evidence/science on their side, but the pro-vaxxers (anti-anti-vaxxers) rarely have any, either. They go along with the establishment for the same reason they do so in other issues. They know as much about vaccines as they do about CERN or advanced calculus or obscure Bible verses, or, come to think of it--climate science. Yet those who differ from these views instantly become shifted to a "them", an "other", who are intrinsically wrong, immoral, stupid, incomprehensible, dirty, etc.

It is hard to find any kind of pro-vaccine argument that attempts to weigh the immediate cost/benefit to the child without reference to ideas of grand responsibility/group norms and identity, and that provides studies that support them. When I compared the serious adverse reactions to estimated chance of serious harm from disease with a vaccine, I found them to be comparable. Unfortunately, I am not equipped to do so except in a back-of-the envelope manner, because the CDC and other authorities do not condescend to make such efforts themselves.



Johnc -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 17:43:11)

quote:

It is hard to find any kind of pro-vaccine argument that attempts to weigh the immediate cost/benefit to the child without reference to ideas of grand responsibility/group norms and identity, and that provides studies that support them.


a quick google provides all the peer reviewed, non emotional, non irrational evidence you could ever need.
not least of which is..
http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

quote:

When I compared the serious adverse reactions to estimated chance of serious harm from disease with a vaccine, I found them to be comparable

this may be true in western society were we are protected via herd immunity, as soon as a large enough part of the population stop being immunized (I cant recall the amount required to provide herd immunity) this will change, quite quickly.

John



Kevin -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 17:48:09)

quote:

peer reviewed,


Careful John. There are people here who not only do not believe in peer review, but actually believe that all culturally mediated thought IS peer review.



runner -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 4 2015 18:13:19)

Given my stated biases in favor of following either a broad, nay near-universal, consensus among specialists in a field (in the sciences especially), or the dictates of a broadly-conceived common sense, it will not surprise anyone that the examples of both smallpox and of poliomyelitis spring immediately to my mind when one considers risk/benefit analyses of population-wide vaccination efforts. The world eagerly awaits effective Ebola, SARS, HIV and a host of other effective vaccines. Pakistan's growing polio problem is not encouraging. Measles isn't polio, but whatever happened to the idea of the Social Contract, of a shared responsibility? I saw polio, which claimed the health and in some cases the lives of people I knew, essentially eliminated in the US within a decade or two following the near-universal introduction of the several vaccines. I used to be a flaming libertarian myself-- the real deal, Ayn Rand 200 proof. Then I grew up.



Page: [1] 2 3 4    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET