Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"I take it that you, Mr. Clawson, both embrace your anti-Semitism, and virulently oppose Nazi organizations. So again, I stand corrected. Bob Clawson is anti-Semitic; the Nazis are also anti-Semitic; it does not, however, follow that Bob Clawson is a Nazi, merely that he is an anti-Semite."
Yes, that's correct. Otherwise the implied syllogism would be fallacious.
"Having never suggested that Japethite genes or culture were resposible for the first or second world wars, I can not condone your attitude that, since Semites are involved in armed conflicts, they are therefore stupider than other peoples."
Well, you don't have to condone it because I never even implied it.
"As for "demonizing" you, Mr. Clawson, I see no reason to, were I even of a mind to engage in that sort of thing (which I am not). You show yourself to exhibit many of the traits I'd need to "foist upon you" to create a demon, and you publicly embrace those traits. Were I seeking to demonize you, the work would already be done for me."
Then you ARE "of a mind to engage in that sort of thing."
You, just, as Emily, do it slant.
"And yes, I am very, very sober."
Good to hear. One "very" will do. I heard Ned Rorhem use FOUR today: "Very, very, very, VERY delicate."
Shameless O'Clawson
|