BS: Trojan Horses

Subject: BS: Trojan Horses
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 10:47 AM

A few weeks back, in another thread, someone made the comment that, in effect, they were against something on the basis that it was a political "Trojan Horse".

I believe what is meant by this – at least the concept I'd like to discuss –is the notion that we will choose to be against something that we know (or believe) to be right on the grounds that it may lead to something we don't believe in.

That disturbs me. Always has.

I remember as a youngster having this discussion with my mother. Back then the issue was the impending civil rights legislation. To be fair to my Mom, I don't remember the specifics of the legislation being debated (it was after the initial passing of the civil rights act), nor do I know how she ended up voting (if that was her option). What I do remember is this concept: --she had her reservations not because she was against equal rights for all (she clearly was, and thought the constitution already provided that), but specifically, she feared that the legislation would lead to things that she did find immoral (like affirmative action, reverse racism, etc).

Currently, both sides employ this tactic. The right argues against ALL gun restriction because of what it might lead to even though many of them probably don't believe that some of the measures suggested would be THAT dire. The left argues against restriction on late term abortion because of what it might lead to though many, in the quiet of their conscience, are troubled by the extent of abortion at this point.

Does this notion of "Trojan Horse" bother you? Are you so pragmatic and goal oriented politically that you would consciously choose to not do what is right (what you believe to be wrong) merely because of what it might lead to?

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 10:49 AM

crap.

I hate it when I miss ONE code and ruin a whole post.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 11:35 AM

In UK politics I think this would more correctly be termed a "Stalking Horse" i.e. something allowed into the herd as it doesn't seem too outrageous, but forming the 'thin end of the wedge'.

The term "Stalking Horse" has been used when several people wanted to replace Margaret Thatcher, but none was prepared to stand up & say so, so they got a "stalking Horse" candidiate (JohnRedwood) who was no threat to the leadership, but once the matter of the leadership being in contention was in the open, others 'Threw their hats in the ring'

Nigel
(pedant, and occasional mixer of metaphors!)

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 01:18 PM

The end does not justify the means.

Except in extremis, perhaps.

And the general law is that large scale systems changed on the basis of small scale insights will invoke   unintended consequences.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 07:14 PM

Oh, pooh, I thought this was about equine condoms. And here it's about politics. Wait, though....

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: GUEST,misophist
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 07:18 PM

The problem with your argument, John Hardly, is that in certain situations the 'what it may lead to' argument is not only valid but compelling. In general, it always fails. But for a wide range of specifics, there are well funded people just waiting to exploit any hole in the dike.

And consider the middle ages. At the Sorbonne, the viva voce examinations for doctorates of theology were life threatening experiences. If the questioners could show that your ideas led to heresy, it was either lose your degrees and poswsible go to prison or die.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Joybell
Date: 12 Oct 03 - 07:43 PM

Back to the Trojan Horse. I loved that story when I was a little kid but I never understood why the people of Troy didn't smell a rat - to add another animal metaphore. The thing is that some of them probably did. They were probably told that if they were to have this gift they would have to think quick or it would be taken away. I've heard that one. No time for debate. No time for thought. I think that the Trogan Horse story is an excellent way of starting this discussion. I am reminded of the "gifts" of land (degraded land that is) free trees and equipment given by developers to green groups in exchange for pristine wildlife-rich bushland that they had their eyes on.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 07:58 PM

Another phrase that gets tossed around a lot in political discussions these days is "slippery slope." It implies that if you take one step in a certain direction you will inevitably go the whole way and end up at the bottom of a hill, and it will be impossible or extremely difficult to get back to your starting point, however much you may want to. For example, here's an article arguing against gun control: All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America. Were you people in England aware that you had gone down a slippery slope?

Another rhetorical device that conservatives like is the parable of the frog in the boiling water. Drop a frog into boiling water, they say, and he will jump out and survive; but drop him into cool water and gradually heat it up, and he will never notice the heat until it's too late, and he will be cooked to death. Trouble is, it's the exact opposite of the truth (see Snopes). Yet many people still use this argument, for example Steven Yates, and Tom Barrett. The moral seems to be, if anything is changing, you'd better oppose the change now, because later on, you will lose the ability to oppose it.

Then there's the parable of the camel sticking his nose into the tent to get it warm. The nose seems harmless, but if you don't stop the camel now, he will soon put his whole head in, and then his neck, and then his whole body, and he will trample everything and crowd you out! In some conservative circles, this is such a cliché that they don't even have to explain it. See this article titled "Another Camel's Nose Under the Tent." The camel is mentioned in the title of the article, and never mentioned again!

The intended effect of all these clichés, parables, metaphors, etc., is to make any change seem scary. If you allow anything to change, you will lose control, and end up with more change than you bargained for, and you will not be able to change back. So it's safer to keep things as they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 08:42 PM

I'd have thought that the Trojan Horse metaphor in politics is more likely to be used in cases where people are scared that electing someone on the basis of what the nice things they said while running for election might actually mean you find yourself with a much nastier set of people in control than you had bargained for.

The recent election in California might be a case in point. Clearly a lot of people are scared it might turn out that way.

Metaphors about slippery slopes and frogs in boiling water aren't by any means the exclusive property of the right. They are about fear of change, and fear of change can sometimes be the right way to see it.

Radical and threatening change can come from the right every bit as much as from the left. More so in fact in recent years. And whichever direction they formally come from, there are times when it is important to resist changes which are badly thought out or unjust.

I'm in full agreement that it is wrong to oppose something that is good in itself merely as a matter of tactics. However voting for Hitler just on the grounds that he proposed to build the Volkswagen would not have been a good thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 10:07 PM

I used the term "Trojan Horse" because it was used here recently to refer to the reason why liberals have to be in favor of late term abortion ------- even IF they believe in their heart of hearts that the fetus at that point is a human being, likely to survive on its own. If liberals gave in there might be a next step.

Slippery slope is indeed a term that I have heard to describe the same political-speak.

And, yes, if you will observe my initial post I even commented that the very same objection is raised by the right when referring to gun control.

There. Now let me try to rephrase the question again because I've obviously done a piss-poor job thus far.

Does it not bother you to make a judgement that you believe to be the wrong one.......even the immoral one (if you believe in morality) just because you believe that it MIGHT lead to something further down the line to which you DO object on reasonable grounds.

Would you use the "slippery slope" "Trojan Horse" rational for refusing the right thing -- or causing a bad thing -- just because of a fear of what COULD come next.

If you are on the left -- would you accept the rationale that late term abortion must be accepted or else the pro life movement will make headway -- even if you thought that it crossed a moral line.

On the right -- would you accept the rationale that some gun restriction that you thought reasonable must still be refused just because it MIGHT lead to a restriction that you do not find reasonable.

And if we all agreed to stop drawing our political lines BEFORE we even come to the point of the issue we truly disagree on, wouldn't we all be closer together politically? Harmoniously?

And wouldn't we be bypassing lotsa irrational debate that now occurs?

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 10:10 PM

and I just left out the ???? that should have punctated each of the middle four paragraphs.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 10:53 PM

A practical example:

My four-year-old twin boys are running around in a crowd. I know they are getting "wound up," so I tell them to stop what they are doing (because I said so) before someone gets hurt.

Wouldn't this be a case of Trojan Horse that you could accept, John?

They haven't done anything wrong...yet...but I can see the escalation/trend and I know it should be stopped. And prevention really is less painful than waiting for a forbidden action to occur.

Perhaps the word trend is a key word that cannot be transferred to other situations. Perhaps also we cannot make the analogy from a mother's "knowing" to other types of "knowing." But isn't that what we do?

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: mack/misophist
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 12:37 PM

People often denounce the concept of 'situational ethics'; the idea that a thing can be right or even necessary in one situation and utterly wrong in another. Such people only exhibit a fear of complexity. Life is complex and each ethical choice should be made independently. 'One size fits all' does not work well in the real world. Medecine is a good analogy, a grain of aspirin may cure a headache, a pound of aspirin will kill you. Forcing difficult ethical issues into a 'one size fits all' mold is a recipe for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: AliUK
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 01:03 PM

I think I have misunderstood the meaning of " Trojan Horse". Semantically to me a Trojan Horse is something that appears to be one thing but really contains another. Tony Blair for example, appeared to be a very nice M.O.R. safe, Labour politician, when he is in fact a warmongering, arse-licker of the highest order. The metaphore of the Trojan Horse seems to have changed its meaning since my day.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 01:10 PM

I'd draw a distinction between agreeing to something you believe is wrong or opposing something you believe to be right, for slippery-slope reasons, on the one hand, and digging in your heels on something that is relatively insignificant as a way of heading off something you can see looming up.

I think the former always in fact undermines your ability to take a stand on principle, because it means it is founded a on a betrayal of principal. The latter is a tactic which is perfectly acceptable - if you like, it's analogous to the golden rule of anyone facing hostile interrogation, refuse to give any information at all, because it softens you up. Well, maybe name rank and number ,if that's appropriate.

And again I'd distinguish the former from the situation where the worry isn't so much slippery-slopes as divide-and-rule. Most organisations or groups are coalition, and there is room for disagreements within them. Some agreements are more important than some disagreements.

But either way you shouldn't lie about what you believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 07:58 PM

Trojan horse
       n 1: a subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in
            espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst [syn: fifth
            column]
       2: a program that appears desirable but actually contains
          something harmful; "the contents of a trojan can be a
          virus or a worm"; "when he downloaded the free game it
          turned out to be a trojan horse" [syn: trojan]
       3: a large hollow wooden figure of a horse (filled with Greek
          soldiers) left by the Greeks outside Troy during the
          Trojan War [syn: Wooden Horse]

AliUK, if the meaning of trojan horse has changed, the change passed me by.

"...the reason why liberals have to be in favor of late term abortion ------- even IF they believe in their heart of hearts that the fetus at that point is a human being, likely to survive on its own. If liberals gave in there might be a next step."

John Hardly, I disagree with you vehemently. You portray a liberal as the most craven being you can objectify. The issue, in my mind, is when does that the fetus become a human being- forgive me if I do not believe that a blob of tissue constitutes a human being. Any church or individual that preaches that each sperm, every egg, is human in its current state loses me from the get go. What is your view? Do you think that moment the sperm has penetrated the egg, a new human being exists? Between that moment and the moment the newborn child takes its first breath is the disconnect.

When God breathed life into Adam's nostrils is when Adam became human, not while he was forming the parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 08:32 PM

"A human disconnect" - that's a new one on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: AliUK
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 09:56 PM

Ebbie,
you gave the definitions of Trojan Horse that I know. It´s John Hardley´s definition that I don´t get ( it seems to be different). If I were a Trojan Horse I would become a right-wing hardliner and then vote for late term abortion, thus showing my liberal roots, for example. Or become a member of the Labour party, Profess liberal ideals and then go to war with a small middle-eastern country that has lots of oil in the name of Human Rights and looking for WOMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 12:50 AM

ok. I get it. It's not a trojan horse.

A trojan horse is something else.

Again, I used it --the term trojan horse -- (obviously without thinking of the repercussions) because, in another thread, the very concept to which I referred --

that of fighting tooth an nail for late term abortion because, even if you DON'T agree with aborting that late in the term (say for instance you have a relative that was born at 6 mo. term and you have concluded from that that 7-9 month term abortion is therefore killing a baby, not unwanted tissue) because if you give in at partial birth, or late term abortion, you might lose the next step too (whatever it might be)

That was referred to BY THAT POSTER as a trojan horse. I just used his term because I thought, hell, it wasn't argued semantically THERE. From that I thought it safe to conclude that most understood what that poster meant.

I was wrong.

We are not discussing "trojan Horses". For that discussion, Little Hawk has started a lovely thread, free of semantic flaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 12:54 AM

The term you might have wanted, perhaps, is "the nose of the camel" -- meaning the first unobjectionable part of something (allowed into the tent) that later admits to being much larger and uglier and takes up the whole tent!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 01:08 AM

except that the nose is not only no threat -- it is actually a positive good -- or something that you stand FOR not AGAINST.

Like for instance my first example.

When my mother mentioned her discomfort for a particular civil rights legislation, I, as a youngster, asked her "is it not in and of itself a good thing?" to which she replied that indeed it was.

So, says young me, "why would you then be against it?"

Says she, "If it is passed it might lead to things that are not good -- like affirmative action"

"But it is not affirmative action is it?" askes the cute and precocious young John Hardly

"No" says my mother.

"...and it is a good thing, as you have already said?" asks young I.

To which she replies, "of course it is".

"Then wouldn't voting against it be wrong, no matter what it might lead to wouldn't it? I asked in conclusion (though I had no bold or italic with which to make emphasis).

And that is all the hell I am asking in this thread. I have never felt like I was a poorer communicator in my life. God, I'm glad I've got clay as a fall-back.

Subject: RE: BS: Trojan Horses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 07:31 AM

Repeatedly in history the pattern has been that modest reforms have been resisted on the ground that they would open the way for extreme changes. And the upshot is that the modest reforms don't happen, and the pressure builds up, and things blow up, and the extreme changes happen.

That's how you get revolutions.