> You are committing a logical fallacy of the type that advocacy of some
physical confrontation is advocacy of any and all physical confrontation.
Just because someone supports or advocates physical confrontation in one
situation does not mean you can tag them with supporting or advocating any
wild idea you can think of.
I simply responded to what you wrote:
> Seems like a very good symbolic act, attacking private property.
If you wish to specifiy when and where this is a "good symbolic act," then do so. Otherwise, I'll assume that in the name of "revolution" you'd endorse just about anything.
> I am more of attorney Lenin school of jurisprudence. Lenin used the
bourgeois courts, but he didn't confine himself to them.
Here we part company, Chuck. I am not a Leninist, and really see nothing admirable about that humorless dictator.
>Seems to me we were winning against Horowitz. This whole episode makes us
look good and Horowitz look bad, sort of like a childmolestor on campus.
Really? Where do you get this impression? In your local sectarian paper?
> Why do you think Horowitz is winning ? I say, keep it up ,Horowitz, more people have heard about reparations than ever before. He is forcing white radicals who have been wishy washy on this to find a way to argue against him.
Horowitz is easy to argue against. He's not forcing anyone to do anything. It's the radicals who've played his game by his rules. I don't know if he's "winning," but he's sure being taken seriously and doesn't deserve to be. Again, another gift handed him by the likes of you.
DP