4 ms·

The history is interesting, but the author's attempt--in the first two sentences--to frame the whole thing as an instance of hypocrisy strikes me as flimsy. If

by GHFigs 14y ago

The history is interesting, but the author's attempt--in the first two sentences--to frame the whole thing as an instance of hypocrisy strikes me as flimsy. If you're trying to invalidate an argument, you can't rest your case on the observation that someone is saying "do as I say, not as I did". It doesn't work when you're a teenager arguing with your parents and it doesn't work when there's such a gleaming and contemporaneous counter-example sitting just a few degrees South of your present attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

PavlovsCat 14y ago
If you're trying to invalidate an argument, you can't rest your case on the observation that someone is saying "do as I say, not as I did". What argument is the author trying to invalidate here? It simply points these things out which are commonly glossed over, with no conclusions drawn from them that I can see. Pointing out hypocrisy is perfectly fine and no fallacy in itself?
- geon 14y ago
  I would say there is no hypocrisy, since the people of the industrial revolution are long dead. Being born in the same nation 200 years later doesn't make you bound by the opinions of your ancestors. Likewise, the germans of today should not be considered evil Nazis, even though some of the original Nazis are still alive.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    That doesn't answer my question as to what argument is supposedly attempted to be invalidated by pointing out hipocrisy. But to answer anyway: being born into the same nation doesn't have as much to do with it as inheriting, as person, as corporation, or even as nation, the fortune/power accumulated, by means which are then made forbidden to others. It's not about any random American citizen, so pointing out the fact that "they aren't all hypocrites" is a strawman; nobody ever claimed they are.
    - GHFigs 14y ago
      That doesn't answer my question as to what argument is supposedly attempted to be invalidated by pointing out hipocrisy. The article refers to "...the U.S. government’s message to China and other nations today...". I understood the author to be saying that said message is wrong. I admit that it wasn't stated outright[1], but I don't think I was misunderstanding the author to read his opening the article by contrasting history with the present policy as a criticism of that policy -- that the implication is that it's wrong for someone to say to do something other than what they did. If you look at the comments here, I think it's evident that a many people agree with that criticism and share that view. I was only pointing out that within the article, that point is poorly argued. It's just sort of taken for granted that "do as I say, not as I did" is obviously wrong. I'm saying that it's not inherently wrong, and--appropriate to the author's discussion of US cotton manufacture in the 1700-1800s--citing slavery as an example of something where "do as I say, not as I did" is entirely righteous. [1] For all I know, the lede could have been tacked on by an editor to make an timely article out of a book excerpt, but that doesn't make it any more right.
eplanit 14y ago
Yes, the reader is asked to simply accept the author's interpretation that "proper provision and due pains" means "breaking the laws of other countries", and then "At least part of the "Report on Manufactures" can therefore be read as a manifesto calling for state-sponsored theft and smuggling.". This non-sequitur is then the basis of the following arguments. Just enough facts to make it taste right, so the rest one swallows without question. Is our history pure and virtuous?...of course not. But to say that China today is the equivalent of the very, very young U.S. at the time of the Industrial revolution is quite a stretch, to me.

by GHFigs 14y ago

PavlovsCat 14y ago

If you're trying to invalidate an argument, you can't rest your case on the observation that someone is saying "do as I say, not as I did". What argument is the author trying to invalidate here? It simply points these things out which are commonly glossed over, with no conclusions drawn from them that I can see. Pointing out hypocrisy is perfectly fine and no fallacy in itself?

geon 14y ago
I would say there is no hypocrisy, since the people of the industrial revolution are long dead. Being born in the same nation 200 years later doesn't make you bound by the opinions of your ancestors. Likewise, the germans of today should not be considered evil Nazis, even though some of the original Nazis are still alive.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  That doesn't answer my question as to what argument is supposedly attempted to be invalidated by pointing out hipocrisy. But to answer anyway: being born into the same nation doesn't have as much to do with it as inheriting, as person, as corporation, or even as nation, the fortune/power accumulated, by means which are then made forbidden to others. It's not about any random American citizen, so pointing out the fact that "they aren't all hypocrites" is a strawman; nobody ever claimed they are.
  - GHFigs 14y ago
    That doesn't answer my question as to what argument is supposedly attempted to be invalidated by pointing out hipocrisy. The article refers to "...the U.S. government’s message to China and other nations today...". I understood the author to be saying that said message is wrong. I admit that it wasn't stated outright[1], but I don't think I was misunderstanding the author to read his opening the article by contrasting history with the present policy as a criticism of that policy -- that the implication is that it's wrong for someone to say to do something other than what they did. If you look at the comments here, I think it's evident that a many people agree with that criticism and share that view. I was only pointing out that within the article, that point is poorly argued. It's just sort of taken for granted that "do as I say, not as I did" is obviously wrong. I'm saying that it's not inherently wrong, and--appropriate to the author's discussion of US cotton manufacture in the 1700-1800s--citing slavery as an example of something where "do as I say, not as I did" is entirely righteous. [1] For all I know, the lede could have been tacked on by an editor to make an timely article out of a book excerpt, but that doesn't make it any more right.

eplanit 14y ago

Yes, the reader is asked to simply accept the author's interpretation that "proper provision and due pains" means "breaking the laws of other countries", and then "At least part of the "Report on Manufactures" can therefore be read as a manifesto calling for state-sponsored theft and smuggling.". This non-sequitur is then the basis of the following arguments. Just enough facts to make it taste right, so the rest one swallows without question. Is our history pure and virtuous?...of course not. But to say that China today is the equivalent of the very, very young U.S. at the time of the Industrial revolution is quite a stretch, to me.