Intellectual dishonesty

Dimitri Vulis wrote:

...

LOGOS writes:

Yes, that and other catagorizations which are irrelevant to the primary focus of this list.

It's funny that you should say this, since Tim May and other prominent "cypher punks" devote so much attention to their "enemies'" ethnicity and religion. Recall the attacks on "crazy Russians", "immigrants who abuse American freedoms", the recent attack on Hispanics, the attacks on Jews, the attacks on Mormons...

Yes I do recall some of those statements. Since you feel that those 'attacks' were inappropriate, is it not intellectually dishonest to engage in such 'attacks' yourself? If it was wrong for them, how can it be right for you? If your age, sex, sexual preference, race, ethnicity, mother tongue, nationality, etc. are irrelevant to the discussions on this list, what possible justification is there for you to raise such issues in my case? I wrote:

...

In any case, it is a good example of the informal logical fallacy of 'over generalization'. As I understand it, there are circa 1000 people subscribed to Cypherpunks. To paint an entire group with such a characterization is both illogical and unfair. I also question your use of the

To which you replied:

What about painting entire ethnic or religion groups, as Timmy May does?

This is truly a non-sequitor. I am sure you know better than this. Tim May is responsible for his actions; you are responsible for yours. Taken to it's logical conclusion, if Tim were to murder a random Russian immigrant, you would be justified in killing a random native American. As I said before, you are obviously too smart to seriously entertain such an irrational viewpoint. Thus it is difficult to draw any conclusion other then that you are rationalizing your inappropriate behaviour.

You sound like someone who doesn't read this list, but only "reads the logs" and sees the complaints from the likes of Arsen...

Actually, I read it quite thoroughly.

I've recently quoted the selected writings of Paul Bradley, most of which were far more "uncultured; crude; or boorish" that anything I ever said. For example: [elided]

Again, would you please explain the logical basis for committing the same abuses you cite from others? I would think you would seek to distance yourself from such behavior, rather than to exceed it. The inappropriate abuse of the 1000 members of this list by others can in no way excuse their further abuse by you.

...

It is obvious to me that you are an intelligent person. I am concerned, however, with your apparent intellectual dishonesty. It would appear that you know perfectly well

You want intellectual dishonesty - look upstairs from toad.com.

No, I want intellectual honesty. But even if I look upstairs from toad.com and find intellectual dishonesty, how would that in any way mitigate your apparent intellectual dishonesty? Are you arguing that one is somehow dependent on, or the result of the other? This makes no sense to me. Does it to you?

...

that your posts serve no purpose in the cause of promoting privacy through the use of cryptography. It is hard to draw any other conclusion then that you are intentionally being provocative for the purpose of disrupting the work of this list. If this is not so, I apologize, but how else can we judge your actions? Please step outside of yourself for a moment and give us an honest self-assessment of your behavior and the motives behind it.

The work of this list appears to be character assassination. If people like Paul Bradley and Tim May insist on slandering people and trying to harm their professional reputations (see the thread on "don't hire" lists), I will do my best to defend them and their freedom of speech,...

The above does not appear to make sense. Did you leave something out? It is unclear to me how rude and provocative personal attacks and broad, unkind generalizations about Cypherpunk list members defends freedom of speech, protects privacy or promotes cryptography. Would you please explain the rationale behind your actions? Logos out