Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> > If you can't see how your psychic analysis, or at least
> > psychoanalysis, of Castro does not constitute "history as it
> > happened", but rather is an ideological gloss, then I'm
> > powerless to help. However, as you take great pleasure
> > in "tweaking" Americans, I expect that's what you're doing
> > now.
> > Stephen, if you contribute something positive, I'll comment
> > on it. Otherwise, why bother?
> Well, that's not very generous of you. After all, I often comment on
> your posts. :)
You skipped the word "positive."
> > How do you know what my emotional state is if and when I
> > "tweak" "Americans"?
> Good point. I do not know. I assume the best. I suppose you could
> instead be filled with malicious glee, or perhaps are in the thrall of
> an uncontrollable compulsion. True, I am assuming that you're not
> shedding tears of pity or sorrow when you "tweak", though that doesn't
> seem too difficult a leap of logic. If I'm wrong, then I'll recant and
> honor you for your deep, sympathetic nature, despite your rather unusual
> way of demonstrating that sympathy.
Straw man argument. There's another possibility: that I simply present history
and facts and let them speak for themselves without an ideological bias.
Naturally I'm human and *do* have my biases, but I'm not a cultist or an
ideologue. Stay tuned for more on this.
> > You can read history, or ignore it with smug personal attacks.
> > Your choice.
> Please name a personal attack I've made on you in this thread.
You called me anti-American, rather than addressing the actual points I made.
> Just one
> will do. You have yourself admitted to enjoying "tweaking" (as you call
> it) various groups, including Americans, so that can hardly be
> considered an attack. On the other hand, crying "Ad hominem!" is
> sometimes an effective way of diverting attention from the fact that
> you're wrong...
As above, that wasn't my intended example.
> History does not record that Castro "saw revolution as the only way" to
> control American hegemony. Marc Schindler may claim it's the case, but
> it's not history. It's ideology. And when you make an ideological claim
> while simultaneously telling someone that ideological analysis is an
> oversimplification, then say you didn't make any ideological claims --
> well, I don't think it's terribly unusual that an observer might point
> out the inconsistency.
Don't just say it. Prove it. I'm going from orthodox history, not Bircher tracts
or some kind of liberal misprising. By the way, there's another fault in your
logic when you assume that I intended to *define* ideology. I didn't -- I said
ideological readings of history is oversimplifying history. Not all summaries or
oversimplifications are necessarily ideological. This was Aristotle's first
logical fallacy: "All Cretans are men does not imply that all men are Cretans."
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“We do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the
worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly
debated…To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was
a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly
character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was
totally unfitted for action.” – Pericles about his fellow-Athenians, as quoted by
Thucydides in “The Peloponessian Wars”
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.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!