I think the choice to not be involved is hippo-critical, especially when one uses the internet and various other things that have come out of DARPA funding. A better approach IMHO would be to accept & work with the DARPA funds on projects that advance goals consistent with your agenda. <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Matt Joyce <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@nycresistor.com">matt@nycresistor.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A Critique of Will Bradley's email by a Troll<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Will Bradley <<a href="mailto:bradley.will@gmail.com">bradley.will@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dale posted a reply* on this topic, but his argument amounts to "the ends<br>
> justify the means."<br>
<br>
</div>Will's opening statement does frame his argument well. And his choice<br>
of argument is exceptional. Anyone with an even rudimentary level of<br>
knowledge concerning the schools of thought in modern sociology would<br>
know that different schools of ethics view "the ends justify the<br>
means" in different light. Thus arguing from this point you are<br>
already discounting a number of folks perfectly valid ethical views<br>
while providing an implicit support of others.<br>
<br>
That being said I would have taken this chance to poison Dale's<br>
decision to address the issue. One way to do this would be a simple<br>
if by whiskey, however I'd prefer something more subtle like a veiled<br>
reference to a seemingly altruistic motive that I can pervert later to<br>
my own ends. All in all not a bad start but it could be better.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> He ignores objections to the military-industrial<br>
> complex, instead assuring us with talk of open-source.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't believe Will realizes how much fun this particular sentence<br>
is. But I enjoyed its depth unintentional or not. He promotes the<br>
idea that Dale is purposefully refusing to address his objections to<br>
the military industrial complex and refuses to elaborate on that<br>
instead assuming the role of the vox populi and making his own views<br>
yours. I like that a lot. It's a great way to pick up some support<br>
from dumber readers and rally people who already have beef with the<br>
vaguely defined military industrial complex. What's important to<br>
realize here is that very argument is a straw man in and of itself.<br>
Because the state of the "military industrial complex" is not at issue<br>
here or relevant to Make in the least. But it is a topic that might<br>
push some buttons on some folks. So well played William. This is a<br>
text book use of the straw man in the first part of the sentence.<br>
<br>
The next component of the sentence is a complete non sequitur in<br>
logic, that seems to denigrate the possible future contributions of<br>
people on this list. Or at least serve a base to introduce a<br>
subconscious bias against a range of possible arguments. I like the<br>
attempt but the execution was over reaching and not very elegant.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Why should the military be funding education when military spending has been<br>
> astronomical and education spending has been strangled for the past decade?<br>
<br>
</div>This is another straw man argument. The structure is textbook, but<br>
the choice of components is poor. The link between military funding<br>
being high and the the ethical concerns related to military investment<br>
in education is tenuous at best. In fact William has left his straw<br>
man open for use by his opponents. Now I am willing to accept that<br>
MIGHT be baiting to force them down a line of argument's that's built<br>
on the sand of a straw man argument but... I doubt it. It's too poor<br>
a choice of elements for that strategy to be effective here. All in<br>
all, I'd say this is a major mistake in Will's effort. I also don't<br>
like stylistically that he reused a fallacy so quickly.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> A principled person would advocate adjusting the budgets of the DoD and DoE<br>
> instead of siphoning military money to education.<br>
<br>
</div>I like how he immediately implies that to be principled you MUST agree<br>
with the next part of his statement. It sets up a conditional state<br>
that's false. But ultimately it's another straw man argument.<br>
Obviously attempting to build on his previous failed attempt to push<br>
military funding into the argument set he's again beating on the<br>
strawman fallacy. It's getting fairly tired now. An if by whiskey<br>
would have worked very well here. Alternatively an argument from<br>
ignorance could have done wonders. I want to be wowed. This is the<br>
meat of your opening argument. Show me some creativity.<br>
<br>
All in all. I'm underwhelmed by the quality of trolling now and many<br>
readers have likely already been shaken loose from the original hook<br>
of the email. Some will take the bait still but it's possible you've<br>
hit critical mass in people that will openly discount your continued<br>
contributions. That's dangerous to the troll's effectiveness.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The ends don't justify the means.<br>
<br>
> Education is failing partly because teachers are making less than bus<br>
> drivers yet expected to buy 50-student-classrooms full of supplies; just<br>
> follow the money (or lack thereof.)<br>
<br>
</div>We could have seen a really delicious argument from authority here.<br>
No effort was made. I am saddened by this. But maybe Will will read<br>
this and take some time next time to look through his arsenal and use<br>
some of the other tools he has available to him. Or maybe he left<br>
this as bait and has a full battery of arguments from ignorance to<br>
bludgeon to death the way he bludgeoned the straw man fallacy to<br>
death. I cringe at the very thought.<br>
<br>
><br>
> * <a href="http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/04/makerspaces-in-education-and-darpa/" target="_blank">http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/04/makerspaces-in-education-and-darpa/</a><br>
><br>
<br>
Link back. Nice. Gives it the feel of a citation and formal<br>
argument. Had you used an argument from authority or ignorance you<br>
could have footnoted the arguments to supporting stats / etc. And<br>
then possibly baited some folks into a correlative fallacy. You<br>
missed an opportunity earlier, but the framework at least was in place<br>
to capitalize on it had you not done so. As a rifle instructor might<br>
say. You are terrible, but you don't have very many bad habits. You<br>
can be trained. I hope you take this email to heart when you are<br>
constructing future trolls.<br>
<br>
Good luck noble troll.<br>
<br>
-openfly<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Tim Krabec<br>Kracomp<br>772-597-2349<br><a href="http://www.kracomp.com" target="_blank">www.kracomp.com</a><br><a href="http://www.smbminute.com" target="_blank">www.smbminute.com</a> (podcast)<br>
<a href="http://tkrabec.com" target="_blank">tkrabec.com</a><br><br>