Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
"like westboro baptist or some others" - this means some baptist churches, not all (as you are saying).
|
This implies Westboro as the name among which some others might be added. You didn't suggest "First Baptist Dallas" or "Cornerstone Church" (formerly known as "First Baptist Coppell." You went to the "Hitler" of churches. Of any denomination.
And you must have missed that I agreed that using a name like Pol Pot was pretty much like saying "Hitler." It tends to destroy the message. I do agree. And if it had been my post, it would have been something less extreme.
But that does not mean that there are no parallels. Maybe Mao would have been better. Might not like him, but he was not like those others.
Marx was not ever a power. He just used tricks to confuse his readers into accepting that there was some horrible problem and that Communism/Socialism was going to cure it.
My observation is that Nee and Lee were both pretty full of tricks like that. Many tricks of oratory (eventually put to writing). I have commented on the common tricks that both used. Just make a few correct statements concerning irrelevant verses then make an erroneous statement about the one you want to deal with and too many people are just following along without thinking it through. And when spoken, it was worse because you didn't have the time to stop, look at it, and think about it. In writing, you could eventually see it. But too often you will fail to correct yourself once you learn something like that incorrectly. (This has been shown to be true in around 50% of people who learn something incorrectly, especially due to misuse of words in the source of the original learning.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
"But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field." - this is not a statement which implies a trend. This is a blatant comparison of the Recovery with a mass murderer. But even to say that the trend of the Recovery is towards Pol Pot, is bad enough!
|
No matter how bad you think it is to use the Pol Pot thing, it is pointless if you do not sate the issue. The regime before Pol Pot was poor (to say the least). And Pol Pot pointed to that as his reasons for taking over. But he was worse. He claimed "new and improved" in his own way, but it was actually the opposite. It is a "trend." It is a movement in a down-hill direction. The point is "bad to worse" not "Pol Pot."
Despite the admitted error in aron's use of such an extreme example, you are making a strawman out of this. aron did not liken the Recover yto Pol Pot, but as a step further in error relative to what was before — like Pol Pot was to what was before him.
Your little ruse it exposed. The strawman cometh. Purveying his wares of false innuendos and outright lies. Setting up a scarecrow so he can beat it up.
But you have yet to beat on the point that aron made. It stands strong, unhindered by your diversions.