I disagree. That automatic questioning, that first assumption is akin to intolerance. Many things are not as you say necessarily correct. Reverse implications and knee-jerk emotions are places where differences become intolerance and even hate.
Someone can believe, for instance, that Isreal's policies are bad, but they always get classified as anti-semitic for stating as such. They then start to feel that there is a kind of unspoken belief by most Jews that any criticism of Isreal is in their eyes AS. That is then logicaly akin to a belief that Isreal can do no wrong. This ludicrous asumption then fosters the same kind of concern, a kind of "these jews want to do whatever bad thing they want and no one can say anything bad about it" kind of feeling. This is of course the exact same kind of reverse implication, knee-jerk reaction, and may not be the reaction of the original criticizer, but those observing. Anyway, as you can see, where there was once simply criticizm there would become intolerance, and that can lead to hate. A proponent of states rights is constantly under fire from those assuming that she is a segrigationist. After some time, she or those around her begin to think of most of the "liberals" as unreasonable and indiotic. Further some begin to make the reverse implication that all liberals are idiots or are unjustly tying a consept (more state independence) to an evil (segrigation) so as to keep that consept from gaining popularity. It was after all the democrats who tied the two concepts together at one time, in efect stealing the very conservative states rights view away. These democrats are manipulating democracy....see how easy it is to get intolerance? Any of the examples of reverse implication ~can~ lead to intolerance, and a kind of segrigation of political lines. This, in my opinion, is extreamly unhelthy in a democracy. Dare I go to the popular extream of distrust of power? Will that convince you? Couldn't a leadership, a media, use such reverse implication tacktics, such "concept branding" to mold the decisions of voters, to sway public opinion? I say "Differnt" you say "Apple". I say "zoom-zoom-zoom" you say "Mazda". I say "Love'n it" you say McDonalds". I say "Isreal policies bad" you say "Anti-Semite". I say "States rights" you say "bigot". You say "Knee-jerk reverse implicator" I say "idiot".....or, maybe I could take a differnt approach. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > None of these examples are correct! > > > > Correction: none of them are NECESSARILY correct. But many of them have at > least some basis in truth. E.g., criticism of Israel often IS motivated by > anti-Semitism, proponents of so-called "states' rights" often ARE crypto (or not so > crypto) segregationists, etc. Not in all cases. But certainly in enough that > one has to wonder and question if not automatically always assume. > > > > Tom Beck > > www.mercerjewishsingles.org > > "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the > last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
