----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Child Soldiers RE: This week in the Middle East
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 07:41:50PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > That's an interesting question, and depends on who "these people" are. The > > short answer is that, if you said the Grand Dragon, I'd definatly say no. > > George Wallace did more damage, so I'd not equate Jeroen with him. But, I > > was really hoping you would answer my question first. > > No deal. Your question was based on extrapolating an argument I made > to the point of absurdity. Stick with the situation at hand and I will > discuss or answer questions. > Why is it absurd. You said: "Second, given that Jeroen has denied that he is anti-Semitic and also denies hating Israelis or Jews, what do you hope to accomplish by callling him by that name and attributing those views to him?" This raises the question of whether your point was: "Since X has denied being anti-Semitic (or racist), there is no point in using that term in a discussion with that person." I wanted to see where you drew the line. I am friends with racists. People who say I deny reality because I don't accept that blacks are inherently inferior, as is proven by science. I disapprove of what they said, and have told them so. Anti-Semitism is part of the warp and woof of Western Society for almost 2000 years. It is not absurd to think that normal, everyday people can be infected by it. Its like racism in the US. My baby sitter, a women who, in most aspects, was one of the kindest women I ever know, uttered some horrid racist statements, even though she never really met a black person. It is a risk we all face. Finally, let me make one more point. I have absolutely no idea of where you draw the line on anti-Semitism. I ask questions to see where you draw the line. You can ignore my questions, but then I will just know less about where you stand. Dan M. Dan M.
