I don't think ANSWER or anyone else has an obligation to denounce SH in their literature, nor do I think that, because they don't spend their time doing so, that they have no crits. I assume, in fact, that most people agree that SH is a bastard so why waste breath on something that isn't even worth bringing up. We fucking KNOW it already.
Logical fallacy: paint ANSWER as pro-Ba'athist > Yoshie and others work with ANSWER for a particular political end > Yoshie and others are despicalbe creeps who, while they might not mean it, are objectively pro-Ba'athist.
Logical fallacy: you're a hypocrite if you defend Chinese invasion but not US invasion. Hypocrits are icky people. Yoshie and Carrol et al are icky. 'nuff said.
they have all made arguments that are pretty convincing as to why they take the positions they take. I, personally, don't agree and am not fully convinced. But calling them pro-Ba'athists or hapring on their association with those you believe are is, again, logical fallacy.
Why bring up ANSWER in the first fucking place? And why demand an explanation of their supposed hypocrisy. They've already answered you with pretty decent reasons--again, reasons I don't ultimately support--but I have to admit that they at least have a freaking argument that is worth listening to and arguing with. Calling them objectively pro-Ba'athist is assinine.
Now, i'm waaaaaaaaay over limit and I'm really disgusted that this has turned into an idiotic meta-discussion of why logical fallacies suck in argument. I am just so fed up with reading them from you, Justin, chucko, and michael. You're folk I tend to be politically aligned with ferchrisakes and it sucks to see y'all use idiotic debate tactics over and freakin' over and over again.
crambe repetitia!
kelley
At 10:31 AM 9/21/03 -0400, Dennis Perrin wrote:
>Can we get those "anti-war" folks here who insist on linking arms with
>pro-Ba'athist groups (in the name of Global Peace) to justify the Chinese
>invasion and occupation of Tibet? I've seen defenses of this invasion here
>in the past, and was curious how *that* invasion (and high civilian death
>toll) is less of an affront to their sensibilities than the current invasion
>and occupation that has them in a rich, foamy lather.
>
>DP
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk