Norman Geras really needs some
lessons in logic:
It's a simple logical point, the very simplest: if you say that a certain doctrine - call it [X] - should be dumped in the nearest skip, and if you also believe that [Y] is, in certain circumstances, a justified policy, it better not be the case that the doctrine of [X] includes the proposition that [Y] is, in certain circumstances, a justified policy. Otherwise you'll be dumping something in the skip that you don't really want to dump there.
Let's test this with some different values of X & Y. I am unapologetic in my view that the doctrine of CHAM (Compulsory Homosexuality for All Men) should be slam-dunked back in the skip whence I have just plucked it. But wait! Among its less controversial policies, CHAM holds that men who wish to engage in homosexual relationships should be free to do so. Therefore, by Norm's argument,
I must wish to criminalise gay sex.Others: X = hanging 'em and flogging 'em, Y = punishing criminals; X = Nazism, Y = opposing communism; X = communism, Y = opposing Nazism. Etc, etc, etc.
I mean, if X is a political doctrine, then just about any value of X would want the bins emptied on time, wouldn't it? So if you've ever taken an opposing political stance to anything at all, then I conclude that you have actively campaigned to see the streets of Britain flooded with stinking, rotting rubbish.
UPDATE: I'm going to be really logicky about this.
If X is a political doctrine then it entails a number of specific policies: a,b,c,... To believe in X means to sign up for
each of a,b,c,... (of course in the real world there's more room for manoeuvre, but this is the basic meaning). So X is a
conjunction:
X = a AND b AND c AND...
Now, if we want to negate X, that is assert that X is false, all that is necessary is that
one of a,b,c,... fails. This is de Morgan's
second law. So...
NOT X = (NOT a) OR (NOT b) OR (NOT c)...
Norm's error is in believing that to reject X it is necessary to reject
each of a,b,c,...:
NOT X should be (NOT a) AND (NOT b) AND (NOT c)...
Norm concludes his 2000 word expounding of the above mistake by accusing Conor Foley of having tied himself in "logical knots", and of producing "flannel".