>> email@example.com writes:
>> For the record, I found that document, not the website, while googling. I
>> did not "check" the homepage for racist content (should I have?). I get the
>> impression from some that virtually anything said by a branded racist is
>> automatically a lie. Am I now a racist too because I believe *****SOME*****
>> of the facts stated there to be true? --- AL V
> By definition, unless you can supply evidence of the notion that some races
> are superior to another-Define Superiority-then racism is faulty thinking. It
> is then incorrect and non-scientific. Should we condone or coddle racist
> thinkers in this list, in order to call ourselves "libertarians"? Nada.
Allow me to substitute the word "Communist" for "racist" in Mitch's
statements. It should be interesting to see the effect!
"...Unless you can supply evidence that the idealistic vanguard of the
people should have total control, then Communism is faulty thinking.
It is then incorrect and non-scientific. Should we condone or coddle
Communist thinkers in this list?"
I think that the answers to both questions are the same.
Joe Dees adds:
> Another way to refer to racists: sociocultural luddites.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT