Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: "Sabotage of Humanitarian Efforts by Political Opportunists"
Message-ID: <550@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 15:52:59 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.550
Posted: Sat Feb 23 15:52:59 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 02:57:09 EST
References: <21577@lanl.ARPA> <490@sfmag.UUCP> <540@fisher.UUCP> <500@sfmag.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 41

> = Yitzchok Samet responding to David Rubin resonding to Yitzchok Samet,
" " = David Rubin responding to ... oh, you know what I mean ...

> No! I think that they are being manipulated against their interests
> to get involved in a "war" which is not theirs. Using emotional scare
> tactics on unwary people is undermining their ability  for free choice.
> That's why consumer laws were written to protect people from
> unscrupulous high pressure, door to door salesman. People who "choose"
> under pressure tactics are being manipulated and need time to cool
> off and reconsider.
  
So it's "high-pressured sales tactics" to allow them to choose, but
not so to make the choice for them!? It is "emotional scare tactics"
to tell them they will be accepted (at least by most) regardless,
but it isn't to threaten them with nonacceptance!?  This is
humpty-dumpty linguistics.  By all means, let them reconsider for as
long as they need to -- it's not those who advocate their immediate
acceptance who bar them from reflection on the matter.

> The lines you  conveniently deleted from my article (... .....)
> contain the answer to your charge, namely, that they could only
> gain and not lose  by going to mikveh. The opportunists raised
> false charges of racism to emotionally confuse the people and
> obscure that that simple yet essential point.

Your charge of censorship is unfounded.  First, the ellipsis was
clearly marked, and, second, a reference line was provided to all.
As for the answer to my charge being in the edited (for brevity, I
assure you) lines, you didn't understand my challenge: if they
truly have nothing to lose and everything to gain, they will
certainly arrive at the "correct" (from your point of view) decision
WITHOUT BEING COMPELLED TO DO SO.  You can make that argument to them
rather than to me.

You seem to believe these people cannot withstand the withering
corruption emanating from those who will let them choose; you do not
respect their ability to make a moral choice; you proclaim your
acceptance of them as equals.  These sentiments are not consistent.
I do not believe that those who would act as you are advocating are
racists (i.e. believe themselves genetically superior to blacks), but
rather believe themselves morally superior to all who don't share
their viewpoint, whatever color, religion, or kind of Jew they may 
happen to be.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david