> Since this thread is fraying all over the place, here's a
> summary post of how I see the history of Cuba.
> [...]
> 6.    That things aren't even worse in Central America and the
> Caribbean are thanks to an elder of Zion, J. Reuben Clark, Jr.,
> whose "Clark Memorandum" diverted early 20th century attempts
> by the U.S. to become true imperialists like their British and
> French predecessors.

Not sure how this (or any of the following points) has anything to do 
with the history of Cuba. Also, don't you think your above statement is 
an oversimplification?

> 7.    I have no idea what Victor is talking about. Where does
> one get a card that says one is a liberal democrat?

One can get that from me, for a small charge.

> Also, it's "straitlaced," not "straightlaced." The words have
> different meanings.

Not according to www.m-w.com. They are listed as variant spellings of 
the same word. In any case, if you're going to be critical of spelling, 
you missed "then", "let's", "forgiveness", "afterlife", "card-carrying", 
"temple-going", and of course "Latter-day Saint". But such things seem 
to me a case of attacking the messenger instead of the message, 
something I know you find distasteful.

> If he means all Democrats are liberal, then I suggest he discuss
> his problem with President Faust, a registered Democrat.

Interesting. I did not get that meaning at all from what he wrote, nor 
did it even occur to me. Perhaps Canadians just can't understand 
American political talk...

> 8.    An ideological approach is one where one demonizes an
> opponent by using a label in such a way as to divert one's
> attention from what actually happened in history.

Ah. In other words, Steven's approach was ideological *because* he was 
"demonizing an opponent" with ideological tags, while your approach was 
clearly not ideological, since you weren't using your ideological tags 
to demonize Castro. But then, you were arguably demonizing the US. Of 
course, I expect you'd claim the US wasn't your "opponent", so therefore 
it still doesn't fit your definition of "an ideological approach". I'm 
just not sure I accept your definition, I guess.

> One of its particularly obnoxious tools, and the reason I left
> Zion-L once, is when they try to claim ecclesiastical/doctrinal
> authority for their perverted and hobby horse views.

Again, I agree completely with this sentiment. As an example, those who 
try to leverage Elder Nelson's recent conference talk to bolster their 
sociopolitical views against US actions toward Iraq are obnoxiously 
wresting his "ecclesiastical/doctrinal authority" to support their 
"perverted and hobby horse views". Wouldn't you agree?

> 9.    Pointing out your own history to you doesn't make one
> "anti-USAmerican".

True enough. Rather, continually and disproportionately attacking US 
actions, past and present, and attaching such ideological tags as 
"imperialistic" and "militaristic" to the US, makes one anti-American, 
at least in my view.

> If you disagree with my reading of history, then prove me
> wrong, don't attack the messenger. That's the classic mistake
> of an ad hominem argument.

So when the anti-Mormons say, "Those twisted Mormons get NAKED in their 
temples! And they're POLYTHEISTS, like Hindus! And they teach that Jesus 
and Satan are BROTHERS!", your response is to say, "Yup, you're 
absolutely right, no arguments here"? Or do you concede that the 
messenger's presentation may indeed severely color the message?


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to