> 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."

On the contrary, that was my point. I *still* comment on your posts, 
even though...

(but it's never very funny if you have to explain)

> There's another possibility: that I simply present history
> and facts and let them speak for themselves without an
> ideological bias.

Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. That's good for a 
chuckle, Marc, but I doubt any of us believe it, including you.

> 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.

No kidding? How about that. Can you find the citation where I did such a 
thing in this thread; that is, called you "anti-American" instead of 
address your actual points? Because I've looked, and I can't find it. 
Not to say I didn't do it -- I do have notorious swiss-cheese memory at 
times -- but I can't locate the offending post. And frankly, I don't 
believe it ever happened. But feel free to prove me wrong. I'm sure you 
wouldn't want to be making unsubstantiated claims. <tweak, tweak>

> 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.

> Don't just say it. Prove it.

Okay, how's this:

     STEPHEN: Hey, History, did Castro see revolution as the only
     way to control American hegemony in the Caribbean?

     HISTORY: Huh? What kind of stupid question is that? How the
     heck should I know what Castro saw or didn't see?

     STEPHEN: So, your answer is...

     HISTORY: No! Of course not!

There. That should constitute a convincing proof.

> By the way, there's another fault in your logic when you
> assume that I intended to *define* ideology.

It wasn't an assumption. It was an observation. You defined "an 
ideological approach" when you wrote, "An ideological approach is one 

> I didn't -- I said ideological readings of history is
> oversimplifying history.

You said, or more properly, wrote: "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." This 
constitutes a definition (and an incomplete one at that) of "an 
ideological approach".

> 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."

No, that fallacy is not oversimplification. Rather, it's the fallacy of 
confusing the group and the subgroup. In any case, I'm guilty of neither 
fallacy, as I have shown above.


///  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