From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies WASTE BANDWIDTH
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:59:07 GMT

In article <92323.1427542893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:

# In article <1992Nov18.134100.2612@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
# makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) says:

# >        [ Note - I have deleted much here - dlm ]

# >In article <92323.0131202893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
# ><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

# ># In article <1992Nov18.004605.6160@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
# ># makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) says:

# ># >In article <92322.1419442893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
# ># ><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

# ># ># In article <1992Nov17.022910.24924@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
# ># ># makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) says:

# ># ># >In article <emc.721961733@ro> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

# ># ># ># A racist will never admit to being one.  He/she will admit to
# ># ># ># the existence of racists, but his/her policies will never
# ># ># ># be racist, by definition.  Save your breath and our bandwith
# ># ># ># ladies and gentlemen.

# ># >        I would like to thank Andy for posting this since it gives me an
# ># >opourtunity to say something else about Eli's post.  It would seem,
# ># >according to what he wrote above, that anyone who denies they are a
# ># >racist is one.  Well, I will not do it, but I wonder what would be if
# ># >I called Eli a racist?

# ># False logic. Saying that a racist will never admit to being a racist is not
# >the
# ># same as saying that all people who deny being a racist are racist.

# >        I agree it is false logic.  However, Eli seems to imply that a
# >racist will never admit to it.  He does this after making accusations
# >that Kach was a racist.  He than dismisses refutations of that claim
# >by stating that a racist will never admit to being one, implying that
# >Kach is racist despite refutations of that claim.  Therefore my point
# >was and still is valid (The false implication breeded the false
# >logic.).
 
# I'm sorry, but it is not rational to refute falsehoods with false logic. If
# you cannot refute them with real logic, you shouldn't even bother.
 
	I was using the false logic to show how stupid Eli's comment was.
It was not a direct refutation.

# You seem to imply that the only people who are racists are those who admit
# to being racist, a silly concept.

	No I do not.  I was merely replying to a nutty implication in a
fiting manner.

# One has to examine the words and deeds
# of the organisation or person in question, not their denial of being a racist.

	I agree.  However Eli seems to just want to examine them on the
basis of "of course the deny it, they all do".  He does not wish to
examine them on any of the things you mention.

# Does Kach promote racial intolerance and racial separateness. Do they
# explicitly argue or implicitly imply that one racial or ethnic group are
# superiour or have more inherent rights than another? If so, they are racist
# if not, they are not racist.

	Fine.  However, this test applies to everyone and everything
(including Kach's legitimate Jewish sources), not just Kach.

# Pat Buchannan denies being an anti-Semite, I doubt you would take that as the
# final word on the subject, nor should you.

	You are correct.  I would not and should not.  However, his denial
of being an anti semite cannot simply be dismissed by saying that an
anti-semite will never admit to being one.  This is precisely what Eli
tried to do.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish