at Tech Central Station discussing the difference between what he calls Type C and Type M arguments.
It's a very useful categorisation. It's a good article, too. Go read.
And it's that sort of nonsense from the Left that has pushed me hard into the center, and it's why I treasure more than ever any rational voice from that sector of Polispace. Roger Simon, Michael Totten, Jennifer and other such luminaries. Their voices are sadly few.
1
As a person who got their economics degree (Even if the usefulness of it has yet to show itself to me.) from professors who sought to give me a way of observing and analysing the world, I agree whole heartedly. In fact, I know Paul Krugman could make Type C arguments because I read some of his works for my courses, and they struck me as very logical and definitive (Even if we are on the opposite side of the spectrum.). To see my field get dragged into the mud because of Krugman's indulgence in stone-throwing...Well, let us just say economists have enough problems with too many people being ignorant of economics. We certainly do not need more.
C.T.
(How's that for a mix? Economics degree holder - not an economist yet - and anime fan.)
Posted by: C.T. at Tuesday, April 06 2004 02:19 PM (MwU1x)
Posted by: geekWithA.45 at Tuesday, April 06 2004 03:45 PM (B+5tj)
3
Thanks GWA.45, that's a good list. I still think that Type C vs. Type M is a useful distinction though.
Now, am I going insane or is this thing tossing my cookies?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 09:55 PM (+S1Ft)
4
I must be insane.
Well, let's see how this goes then.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 10:00 PM (+S1Ft)
5
Okay, that was about 14 seconds. Now let's try doing it properly...
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 10:02 PM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 10:02 PM (+S1Ft)
7
Yay me! 4 seconds!
(Sorry, just basking in the not-too-appalling-slowness.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 10:10 PM (+S1Ft)
8
Darn, that was slow. Let's try again...
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 10:12 PM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 06 2004 10:20 PM (+S1Ft)
10
Heh. Arnold Kling argues for the type-C/type-M distinction using type-C arguments.
In the further discussion Pixy links to, those who try to rebutt Kling's distinction use type-M arguments.
But then, as a believer in free markets, I probably have dark motives for pointing this out, don't I?
Posted by: Tom at Wednesday, April 07 2004 10:48 AM (xAW+U)
11
You're one of those evil people who promote individual responsibility! Begone!!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 07 2004 11:17 AM (+S1Ft)
12
Very interesting article. Also, sad to note you had to dig all the way down to me to find a third "luminary" but I digress.
Posted by: Jennifer at Wednesday, April 07 2004 01:31 PM (DdBLw)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 07 2004 01:40 PM (+S1Ft)
14
Are all type-C arguments right and type-M wrong?
Dirty Old Man: "Hey kid, come over here I'm going to give you candy."
Kid C: "No, because its bad for my teeth."
Kid M: "No, because your really going to try to pull me into your car."
Posted by: Ken at Wednesday, April 07 2004 05:09 PM (I9WXg)
15
Ken, that's not quite right.
What the Type M argument says is that if the D.O.M. does in fact give you candy,
that act is bad because of his motives.
Or, to choose another example, removing a brutal dictator is wrong if you do it with the ultimate aim of stealing a country's oil.
In a Type C argument, this would be separated into two distinct actions: Removing the dictator (good) and stealing the oil (not good). Even if the two are linked by a common motive, this does not make the first action bad.
Now, this does not mean you can't judge someone by their motives, it just says that you should judge an action by the consequences of that action.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, April 08 2004 03:16 AM (kOqZ6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
