On 31-12-2009 16:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>>>> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>>>> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>>>>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>>>> a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>>>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
>>>> I heard in a long time.
>>>   And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
>>> I have heard in a long time.
>>>
>>>   You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
>>> situation.
>>>
> 
>> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed 
>> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is 
>> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first 
>> place.
> 
>   Who said anything about Africa. 

gregjohn did.

> I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."

Sigh, read on before replying next time.

>   Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
> they are quoting?

Either the last sentence or the whole quote. The convention is that if 
you only want to react to a part your response comes immediately after 
that part. And after that you give the rest of the context.
Or you do what used to be the convention before e-mail: repeat part of 
the thing you want to refer to, to make clear what you intend.
The way you responded made it impossible to know which sentence you were 
replying to.

>> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the 
>> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before 
>> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of 
>> context and attack that.
> 
>   Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
> be confused about what I was referring to).

You quoted the whole context and responded to only a part, if that makes 
it more clear to you.

>   It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
> referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
> I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
> last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
> context.
> 
>> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said 
>> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and 
>> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and 
>> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly, 
>> have happened).
> 
>   At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. 

Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my 
problem.

> Capitalism does
> not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy.  People
> will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> racism (while other economic models don't).

totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.

>> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things 
>> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man 
>> argument.
>> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context, 
>> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw 
>> man I would say.
> 
>   What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
> man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
> meta-straw-man?

Sorry, I explained why I *perceived* what you wrote as a straw man 
argument, because you asked for it. As such it is just that: an 
explanation, it is not an argument. The only sensible answer would have 
been: 'Oh, I did not realise people interpreted what I wrote wrong in 
this way. Next time I take more care.' Alternatively, you can just 
reiterate that the rest of the world is absolutely stupid for not 
understanding you.

Post a reply to this message