He is proof they need to exist though.
People like Fred?
When someone arrives at the same conclusion as you ,by less rigorous arguments, what do you do? Support, criticise, ignore or laugh? It is a hard one.
My actual view is that a lot of Fred's arguments are actually well-defined and quite rigorous.
When people have a set of assumptions and try , or are forced, to justify them they try to dodge unpalatable conclusions as trivial and inconsequential.
This is the PC brigade to a tee, and is what Fred and a few others are riling about.
The catch is one cannot express these things in anything like sensible rationale argument without sending your audience to snoozeville. People hate dry facts.
I have a statement.
Two intelligent people, arguing rational and logically can only disagree with each other's assumptions. If I have your assumptions, I should be able to reach your conclusions.
The PC brigade often work backwards - they have a pre-conceived view of the world and do not realise that they have a multitude of absurd and often inconsistent assumptions underpinning a lot of their arguments. The most obvious being job/gender quotes.
As you know PB we have it in the UK with Mr Blair's 50% of the country should go to university and top universities should reflect the economic, social, gender and racial mix of the country.
I remember, when I studied engineering that there were 8 men for every 1 women. The actual ratio of women who applied was more, but no sooner had women entered (with lower entry requirements) than they quit engineering to go study something softer. Now that is brains.
No sooner do the powers-that-be set up these stupid conditions than the bright guys and girls arbitrage their stupidity.
Yup, Fred is for the acquired taste.
-macavity |
