Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> If I were attempting to overthrow that government or even merely trying
> to engage in a propaganda war to destroy the hypothetical high trust
> society of that hypothetical european country, I would expect such
> measures as a matter of course. My revolutionary cabal's plans may even
> *require* that such measures be enacted, on the theory that they would
> engender mistrust and resentment enough to engender further support from
> the "useful idiots" in that part of the local intelligentsia who engage
> in arguments of moral equivilancy in order to shround their lack of
> responsibility as citizens.
Frankly, this is worse than calling names. You are directly
impugning my honor and intelligence and that of anyone and
everyone who disagrees with your fundamental positions. Does
this not strike you as a pretty lame and inflammatory argument
technique? A democracy, and better yet, a republic depends on
the freedom of its citizens to question and disagree with any
actions and policies of the State. I think you, of all people,
fully know and appreciate this. So why do you choose to cast
such aspersions on those who disagree with you? I don't
consider such muddying of the waters to be a very honest or
reputable debating technique.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT