To stand on a hill and claim I'm morally superior and therefor my facts are
unassailable is not an argument.
To ascribe the worst motives to others and make your case with 'secret' knowledge
is dishonest.
If someone doesn't agree with your point of view they must be wrong, when they
point out uncomfortable facts you generalize their point to attack "their" logic.
Interesting rhetorical tools but not advancing the argument. But you're not the
only one who can do this.
You seem to dislike people challenging your moral authority. I suspect that you hate
that more than anything else.
I really don't care if you disagree with my logic, since after all it wasn't mine to
start with.
At 08:14 PM 2/2/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> You know it's been a very long time since I had to read this so I'm not
> sure of the authorship. I think it was either TS Eliot or George Orwell, who
> wrote an essay during WWII, using impeccable logic to prove that English
> pacifists supported Adolf Hitler and all he stood for.
And this proves, in your mind, that all pacifism is misguided? That no one
can be against any war at all, ever, and not be contributing to global
catastrophe?
In other words, nice try, but you've said nothing at all here that has any
logic or relevance.
--Mike
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
